He's baaaaack

[Argus]

The man who stood on a stage before thousands of people and proclaimed that nuclear weapons should be used against Israel as soon as any Muslim country gets them - is now the favourite to win the upcoming Iranian "election"

Just as Iran approaches the final turn in its race to develop nuclear weapons.

Solving the Israeli Problem with Nuclear Weapons

Think gas is expensive now? I wonder what the price will be after Israel gets nuked, and responds by wiping out Arab capitals and oil fields.

[shoe-in]

I wonder what the price will be after Israel gets nuked

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Rafsanjani warned of the outbreak of World War III."

I have no idea who Rafsanjani's allies would be. He reminds me of that Iraqi information minister, remember him?

All I know is that if it came to that, and if Rafsanjani started something, the bigger it was the bigger smile we would see on George Bush's and Vladimir Putin's faces.

"COME ON, PUNK, MAKE GEORGE'S AND VLADIMIR'S DAY" is all I have to say.

[Argus]

I wonder what the price will be after Israel gets nuked

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Rafsanjani warned of the outbreak of World War III."

I have no idea who Rafsanjani's allies would be. He reminds me of that Iraqi information minister, remember him?

All I know is that if it came to that, and if Rafsanjani started something, the bigger it was the bigger smile we would see on George Bush's and Vladimir Putin's faces.

"COME ON, PUNK, MAKE GEORGE'S AND VLADIMIR'S DAY" is all I have to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hardly think Bush would be happy at a nuclear war in the middle east. If Rafsanjani is true to his words and uses the nukes Iran is trying to develop it would lead to massive gas shortages and a new world depression - quite aside from killing tens of millions of people and throwing clouds of nuclear dust up into the atmosphere.

You have to remember that these people really don't evidence a lot of care in whether they die or not as long as they're fighting for Allah. They are consumed with hate and religious fervour, and you can't expect logic from them.

[Black Dog]

Oh boy: a MEMRI article.

You also have to remember there's no credible evidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons. On top of that, it's never wise to take the rabble-rousing speeches from the pulpit as serious policy declarations.

You have to remember that these people really don't evidence a lot of care in whether they die or not as long as they're fighting for Allah. They are consumed with hate and religious fervour, and you can't expect logic from them.

Ah yes, the "madman theory" of foreign policy popularized by Nixon. Of course, there's no credible reason to think they actually would start a conflict that would result in their own destruction. Authoritarian regimes are self-limiting in that way. They are no stupid and suicidal. And before Argus decides to tyrot out some nonsense about suicide bombers etc, let me ask this: why do you suppose its always the adherents, the lackeys, the grunts who end up being the one's doing the dying? In othr words, why did Osama bin Laden not fly a plane into the WTC? Why did yassir Arafat never blow himself up on a bus in Jerusalem?

The idea that suicidal fanaticism is deeply ingrained in all Muslims is as ridiculous as saying all Christians are willing and able to firebomb abortion clinics.

[I miss Reagan]

You also have to remember there's no credible evidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons.

What was that Black Dog?? Did we not have a discussion a couple months ago where I said I needed to save what you were saying about Iran's Nuclear Program because you'd eventually argue that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons!

[Black Dog]

Here's an idea: why don't you try reading what was written for a change?

Here it is again. I can try to make it easier to understand for you, but I think its pretty clear:

there's no credible evidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons.

Not that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. Just that there's no evidence they are. And, just so you know, those terms are the same as those used by the Internatonal Atomic Energy Agency.

IAEA report says no evidence of Iran trying to develop nukes

[I miss Reagan]

Oh Black Dog I wish we had access to that thread! You know what you said. I know your opinions sway with the winds of European opinion at the time, but admit what you said.

[Black Dog]

Oh Black Dog I wish we had access to that thread! You know what you said. I know your opinions sway with the winds of European opinion at the time, but admit what you said.

You do have access to that thread.

Here's a search of every thread with "Iran" in it where I've posted.

Since I don't know what thread you're talking about, why don't you take it from here?

Simpler still, why not search for threads with the keyword Iran where you've posted?

ADDENDUM:

Lookee! Here's what I said about Iran before:

There's no doubt Iran has a nuclear program. They've admitted as much, though they've denied they're using it to develop weapons.. But whether that program has acheived any results (ie. actually building a bomb) is another story. We know they haven't tested a nuke. We also know that, even if they had, their ability to deliver one is extremely limited. They have no ICBM capability and limited local delivery. Above all, though, is the question of even if Iran does manage to develop a viable nuclear weapons program and the means to deliver it, would they?

[I miss Reagan]

Thanks for the help Black Dog.

Anyway, here's what you said:

Iran isn't stupid. You can bet their nuclear program is scattered, hidden and heavily fortified.

To which I said:

This is why we already have special forces inside their borders. But wait, I think I better cut and save that comment for when all you lefties start saying they don't have any WMD's. The best are all the quotes from the UN, Clinton, Albright etc. claiming that Iraq had WMDs. Somehow it has become the sole claim of the Bush Admin.

Now, I knew that as soon as the US started getting aggressive with respect to Iran you'd start back peddling. You know darn well that the evidence points to proliferation. I think you're equivocating.

[Black Dog]

Boy, IMR, as attempts to burn a guy go, this is hands down one of the lamest I've ever seen.

I've never denied the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. In fact, I've agreed that it exists. My only qualifier was over the nuclear weapons which they may or may not be pursuing. I've been wholly consistent on that point, so where's the backpeddle?

(BTW, have you admitted your error with regard to Iraq's WMD?)

[I miss Reagan]

My only qualifier was over the nuclear weapons which they may or may not be pursuing.

Come on Black Dog, you think the honorable Iranian government has civil intentions with it's nuclear program? You and Putin

Iraq WMD's, sure I was wrong. But allow me the same privilage of qualifying that with the fact that the WMD's they did possess did not just dissappear into thin air. My argument has always been that it wasn't just Bush that was wrong, the whole world was. Bush didn't lie, he just had the same faulty intelligence that the rest of the world had.

[Black Dog]

Come on Black Dog, you think the honorable Iranian government has civil intentions with it's nuclear program? You and Putin

So you're basically admitting that there was no backpedalling. I didn't say anything one way or the other about Iran's nuclear intentions. But feel free to continue to try and tell me what I think: it only makes you look foolish.

For the record, if I were in Iran's shoes, I would be pursuing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't I?

Iraq WMD's, sure I was wrong. But allow me the same privilage of qualifying that with the fact that the WMD's they did possess did not just dissappear into thin air. My argument has always been that it wasn't just Bush that was wrong, the whole world was. Bush didn't lie, he just had the same faulty intelligence that the rest of the world had.

Look, for the last time, there were no WMDs. Read the ISG final report, which unequivocably states that no WMD or active WMD programs existed.

As to whether Bush lied or not, I believe the U.S. picked the intellegence they wanted to support what was a foregone conclusion (see: Downing Street memo).

[shoe-in]

For the record, if I were in Iran's shoes, I would be pursuing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't I?

This doesn't surprise me.

ROTFPIMPALMFAO!

[theloniusfleabag]

IMR,

My argument has always been that it wasn't just Bush that was wrong, the whole world was. Bush didn't lie, he just had the same faulty intelligence that the rest of the world had.

Utter BS. There was no 'faulty intelligence, there was fabricated evidence. The US and UK were told so before the invasion, and most of the world thought Bush a liar then and now. Further, UNMOVIC and IAEA were on hand, saying that there was no 'proof' when the US and UK said 'Look out! Get out of the way! We don't want proof! Here we come with big guns and no intelligence!"

[shoe-in]

You have to remember that these people really don't evidence a lot of care in whether they die or not as long as they're fighting for Allah. They are consumed with hate and religious fervour, and you can't expect logic from them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to remember that these people respond very well to strong men who don't pussyfoot around with them.

Mr. Saddam Hussein was a good example.

[Technocrat]

children children... keep your panties on now...

discuss don't belittle

[Argus]

Oh boy: a MEMRI article.

It was the easiest to find. I can get you many others quoting the same speech if you would prefer.

You also have to remember there's no credible evidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons.

I'm not interested in legalistic nonsense. I am entirely satisfied, as I think, is every thinking person on this planet, that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

You have to remember that these people really don't evidence a lot of care in whether they die or not as long as they're fighting for Allah. They are consumed with hate and religious fervour, and you can't expect logic from them.

Ah yes, the "madman theory" of foreign policy popularized by Nixon. Of course, there's no credible reason to think they actually would start a conflict that would result in their own destruction.

Why not? Isn't it just a suicide bombing on a grander scale, something the Iranian media have praised for years now? And who says they will personally pay the price? I'm sure they're already having deep underground, hidden bunkers prepared for themelves. Besides, if you really believe you're going to be rewarded by God with 71 virgins, or whatnot, and sit at Allah's right hand, why would you care about dying?

The idea that suicidal fanaticism is deeply ingrained in all Muslims is as ridiculous as saying all Christians are willing and able to firebomb abortion clinics.

How many Christians have firebombed abortion clinics in the last few years as opposed to Muslims involved in suicidally fanatic attempts to murder their percieved enemies?

[Black Dog]

I'm not interested in legalistic nonsense. I am entirely satisfied, as I think, is every thinking person on this planet, that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

You were probably "entirely satisfied" Iraq had WMD. In fact, despite all evidence and reports to the contrary from the same people who wanted to find them, you probably still are.

But like I said, if Iran is not trying to get nukes, they should be. If they've learned anything from Iraq, it's that the survival of their regime depends on their ability to deter the United States and the only way to deter the United States is with weapons of mass destruction, specifically nukes.

Why not? Isn't it just a suicide bombing on a grander scale, something the Iranian media have praised for years now? And who says they will personally pay the price? I'm sure they're already having deep underground, hidden bunkers prepared for themelves. Besides, if you really believe you're going to be rewarded by God with 71 virgins, or whatnot, and sit at Allah's right hand, why would you care about dying?

No regime in history has made the conscious decision to destroy itself. These people did not get where they are by being suicidal. Even if the leadership itself feels they can survive, they still need a country to rule.

How many Christians have firebombed abortion clinics in the last few years as opposed to Muslims involved in suicidally fanatic attempts to murder their percieved enemies?

How many Christian countries have been invaded, occupied or colonized by foreign invaders recently?

Anyway, that's beside the point, which remains the actions of a few do not represent the tendancies of the whole.

[Argus]

I'm not interested in legalistic nonsense. I am entirely satisfied, as I think, is every thinking person on this planet, that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

You were probably "entirely satisfied" Iraq had WMD. In fact, despite all evidence and reports to the contrary from the same people who wanted to find them, you probably still are.

The evidence against Iran is pretty damned obvious. No one could even point to any facilities, missile or real evidence of Iraq's WMDs. But there's no hiding all that nuclear activity in Iran, nor justifying it for any other reason than a nuclear weapons program.

But like I said, if Iran is not trying to get nukes, they should be.

I'm entirely uninterested in justifying Iran's efforts at acquiring nukes. As fas as I'm concerned it would be well worth another invasion or bombing campaign to deny them.

If they've learned anything from Iraq, it's that the survival of their regime depends on their ability to deter the United States and the only way to deter the United States is with weapons of mass destruction, specifically nukes.

Which is why the US hasn't invaded Libia or Syria, right, because of their nukes?

Stop spouting nonsense which is so easily contradicted. Iraq could have stopped any invasion fairly easily by simply cooperating with the arms inspectors. And in any case, I shed no tears for the Iraqi regime.

Why not? Isn't it just a suicide bombing on a grander scale, something the Iranian media have praised for years now? And who says they will personally pay the price? I'm sure they're already having deep underground, hidden bunkers prepared for themelves. Besides, if you really believe you're going to be rewarded by God with 71 virgins, or whatnot, and sit at Allah's right hand, why would you care about dying?

No regime in history has made the conscious decision to destroy itself.

What makes you think the regime would be destroyed? More to the point, what makes you think Rafsanjani believes they would be destroyed? God is with them, after all. God will ensure they survive the attack by the evil Jews.

How many Christians have firebombed abortion clinics in the last few years as opposed to Muslims involved in suicidally fanatic attempts to murder their percieved enemies?

How many Christian countries have been invaded, occupied or colonized by foreign invaders recently?

Yeah, it's really hard living in a corrupt, brutal dictatorship and then being attacked by an evil democratic country which insists you have elections and and freedom of religion and a free press and stuff.

Anyway, that's beside the point, which remains the actions of a few do not  represent the tendancies of the whole.

Depends on how few.

[Black Dog]

The evidence against Iran is pretty damned obvious. No one could even point to any facilities, missile or real evidence of Iraq's WMDs. But there's no hiding all that nuclear activity in Iran, nor justifying it for any other reason than a nuclear weapons program.

Again: so was the "evidence" that made the case against Iraq. Too bad it was cooked. We have this saying in Texas, maybe they haven't in Tennesee..."fool me once, shame on you, fool....fool....won't get fooled again."

I'm entirely uninterested in justifying Iran's efforts at acquiring nukes. As fas as I'm concerned it would be well worth another invasion or bombing campaign to deny them.

Can we expect to see a similar campaign against Israel's nuclear facilities as well? If not, why not?

Which is why the US hasn't invaded Libia or Syria, right, because of their nukes?

Let's put it this way: a nuke would assure more restraint than not having a nuke.

Stop spouting nonsense which is so easily contradicted. Iraq could have stopped any invasion fairly easily by simply cooperating with the arms inspectors. And in any case, I shed no tears for the Iraqi regime.

I'd ask the same of you, but I fear you'd be unable to contribute anything if nonsense was cut out of your repetoire.

No, the invasion had F.A. to do with weapons inspections, violations of UN resoltuions etc etc. It was in the works pre 9-11 and a fait accompli thereafter.

What makes you think the regime would be destroyed? More to the point, what makes you think Rafsanjani believes they would be destroyed? God is with them, after all. God will ensure they survive the attack by the evil Jews.

A nuclear attack would result in a nuclear retaliation. No more Iran, no more regime.

Again, no one gets to the positon Rafsanjani is in by being stupid, foolhardy or suicidal.

Really, most of your theories so far have been light on evidence or logic and heavy on your own predjuidices re: Arabs/Muslims.

Yeah, it's really hard living in a corrupt, brutal dictatorship and then being attacked by an evil democratic country which insists you have elections and and freedom of religion and a free press and stuff.

Even if that were the case, it's utterly irrelevant.

Depends on how few.

No it doesn't.