[D0n]

You should concentrate on facts rather than hysterical rhetoric that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why try to deflect to something you can argue? Is it because you can't argue the facts?
Pray tell, what wars has Iran started in the past thousand or so years? Be specific, who have they invaded?

By your definition of who shouldn't have nuclear bombs, our neighbors to the south should be the very first people you should be advocating that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes. They have used them on civilian populations, and they have somewhat of a history of invading countries that are not a direct threat to them (Vietnam, Panama, Iraq comes to mind), they tend to run around threatening to kill people, and they seem to have very few qualms about killing their own people and invading other countries to kill people.
One of their front runners for the presidential election this year is on record saying that America's answer to it's enemies is to kill them.
This, you think, is a country that should have these sorts of weapons?
Why aren't you railing against the USA having nukes?

used once to end a war... but how many people have been killed by state sponsored terrorists armed and trained by Iran and Syria??? ... sorry but Iran has sponsored groups that attacked American and Israeli and other countries civilian and military targets. Acts of war. The stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, while arming Hezbolla... effectively a declaration of war, that has not yet been responded to militarily.
If they are attacked, it is because they have already declared war...
like a bully that threatens and challenges and calls out an opponent, if they get hit it is because they asked for it..they don't get to cry "Sucker punch". WHEN it happens.

[Wheatfield]

used once to end a war... but how many people have been killed by state sponsored terrorists armed and trained by Iran and Syria??? ... sorry but Iran has sponsored groups that attacked American and Israeli and other countries civilian and military targets. Acts of war. The stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, while arming Hezbolla... effectively a declaration of war, that has not yet been responded to militarily.
If they are attacked, it is because they have already declared war...
like a bully that threatens and challenges and calls out an opponent, if they get hit it is because they asked for it..they don't get to cry "Sucker punch". WHEN it happens.

Again, you can't seem to stick to the facts.

Quote: in the 1980s Ayatollah Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate. Ahmadinejad slightly misquoted Khomeini, substituting “safheh-i ruzgar,” or “page of time" for "sahneh-i ruzgar" or “arena of time.” But in any case, the old translation was dug up and used again by the Iranian news agency, Cole says. In fact, that’s how it was presented for years on Ahmadinejad’s English-language Web site, as the Times noted in a somewhat defensive article on the translation debate.

And you seem unable to answer fairly easy questions, such as:
Why do you think a country that has used nukes on an unarmed civilian population and has a very recent habit of marching on countries that have not directly threatened it, has leaders who publicly state that it kills those who it perceives to be enemies and which has sponsored terrorism as well, should be allowed nukes, and yet a country which has not directly attacked anyone, and merely engages in heated rhetoric to pacify it's citizens shouldn't be allowed to explore peaceful nuclear technology?

You also haven't answered why you think a country that has nukes, but refuses to admit it isn't a rogue state?

You are engaging in what we call hypocrisy. I can understand that you consider one country friendly and the other unfriendly, but you should be looking at the facts, not feelings, especially when the fate of several million people may well be on the line.

[D0n]

Again, you can't seem to stick to the facts.



And you seem unable to answer fairly easy questions, such as:
Why do you think a country that has used nukes on an unarmed civilian population and has a very recent habit of marching on countries that have not directly threatened it, has leaders who publicly state that it kills those who it perceives to be enemies and which has sponsored terrorism as well, should be allowed nukes, and yet a country which has not directly attacked anyone, and merely engages in heated rhetoric to pacify it's citizens shouldn't be allowed to explore peaceful nuclear technology?

You also haven't answered why you think a country that has nukes, but refuses to admit it isn't a rogue state?

You are engaging in what we call hypocrisy. I can understand that you consider one country friendly and the other unfriendly, but you should be looking at the facts, not feelings, especially when the fate of several million people may well be on the line.

how could the west consider Israel a rogue state? who armed them and why? I've taken sides..that is a fact. I choose the side that isn't advocating genocide in the present. I choose the side that won't force people to subscribe to a theocratic dictatorship that forces it's religion on people by beheading. and I choose the side that will fight for the kinds of freedom that I'd want for my children. I choose to believe that taking out the iranian leadership will save many many many more lives that it will cost..comparable to how many lives COULD have been saved by killing Hitler before ww2... There is some facts you choose to ignore...

[Wheatfield]

how could the west consider Israel a rogue state? who armed them and why? I've taken sides..that is a fact. I choose the side that isn't advocating genocide in the present. I choose the side that won't force people to subscribe to a theocratic dictatorship that forces it's religion on people by beheading. and I choose the side that will fight for the kinds of freedom that I'd want for my children. I choose to believe that taking out the iranian leadership will save many many many more lives that it will cost..comparable to how many lives COULD have been saved by killing Hitler before ww2... There is some facts you choose to ignore...

More hysteria, and I suppose Godwin has spoken as well.
You really should educate yourself regarding the realities of Israel. You might reconsider those freedoms you want for your children, especially if they are girls.
Anyway, if you have taken sides, then any sane discussion that might have happened isn't going to happen. I wish I'd known this a couple of days ago, I wouldn't have wasted my time on you.

Consider for a moment though, if you favour killing people because they might commit a crime, are you willing to have your kids, or yourself killed because you or they might commit some heinous act?

[pickles]

how could the west consider Israel a rogue state? who armed them and why? I've taken sides..that is a fact. I choose the side that isn't advocating genocide in the present. I choose the side that won't force people to subscribe to a theocratic dictatorship that forces it's religion on people by beheading. and I choose the side that will fight for the kinds of freedom that I'd want for my children. I choose to believe that taking out the iranian leadership will save many many many more lives that it will cost..comparable to how many lives COULD have been saved by killing Hitler before ww2... There is some facts you choose to ignore...

Don't worry about this guy mate....he NEVER has ANYTHING positive to say about America....he'll probably even defend Iran if they lobbed a Nuke in his backyard.
Cheers, Pickles.

[ihasa]

I choose to believe that...

This 'I choose to believe' thing is something I see a lot in US politics.... people can have all the facts set out for them, but they decide to ignore the facts and reserve the right to 'choose to believe' something else. Is this something that has spilled over from a religious way of thinking?

The myth of the 'Israel must be wiped from the map' statement and how it is interpreted by US warmongers has been explained. You have no response other than 'I choose to believe otherwise'?

hI choose to believe that taking out the iranian leadership will save many many many more lives that it will cost..comparable to how many lives COULD have been saved by killing Hitler before ww2... There is some facts you choose to ignore...

Unfortunately we cannot deal with situations with pre-emptive military strikes before they occur, especially on the basis of things we 'choose to believe' rather than the actual facts of the situation as it is... remember WMD? Iran is being dealt with by international pressure and sanctions and the world's eyes are on Iran, but to suggest a military strike at this stage would be lunacy.

[kswier]

This 'I choose to believe' thing is something I see a lot in US politics.... people can have all the facts set out for them, but they decide to ignore the facts and reserve the right to 'choose to believe' something else. Is this something that has spilled over from a religious way of thinking?

Actually, I think the 'I choose to believe' has more to do with the the two party system and poor journalism than religion. The two parties need some way to contrast themselves against each other, so suddenly everything has 'two sides'. The news media jumps on this because conflict is entertaining (and thus makes money). Thus, you get debate shows, opinion shows, and even news anchors talking about the two sides every issue has instead of looking for the rational solution. Fox news even explains away their conservative bias by saying they are trying to tell the other side of the story that the 'liberal media' does not tell (and other news organizations have the same problem). There are very few news organizations (particularly of TV) that try to examine an issue in depth, and offer well researched information so people can make rational decisions. As a result, people thing that they can choose whichever side sounds appealing to them, instead of looking at facts.

This 'I choose to believe' thing is something I see a lot in US Unfortunately we cannot deal with situations with pre-emptive military strikes before they occur, especially on the basis of things we 'choose to believe' rather than the actual facts of the situation as it is... remember WMD? Iran is being dealt with by international pressure and sanctions and the world's eyes are on Iran, but to suggest a military strike at this stage would be lunacy.

Ironically, I just read a new york times article titled "Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Action in Nuclear Dispute." I am unsure if they meant this statement to be ironic, in response to the pre-emptive military strikes the US did on Iraq and the pre-emptive military strike Israel may be planning, or are they serious. Regardless, the escalation of the situation continues. I agree that a military strike at this stage would be lunacy but I fear that is where it is headed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/iran-says-un-weapons-insp...ear-sites.html

[D0n]

This 'I choose to believe' thing is something I see a lot in US politics.... people can have all the facts set out for them, but they decide to ignore the facts and reserve the right to 'choose to believe' something else. Is this something that has spilled over from a religious way of thinking?

The myth of the 'Israel must be wiped from the map' statement and how it is interpreted by US warmongers has been explained. You have no response other than 'I choose to believe otherwise'?



Unfortunately we cannot deal with situations with pre-emptive military strikes before they occur, especially on the basis of things we 'choose to believe' rather than the actual facts of the situation as it is... remember WMD? Iran is being dealt with by international pressure and sanctions and the world's eyes are on Iran, but to suggest a military strike at this stage would be lunacy.

We know he had wmd..we sold them to him...lol we know he used them..take what we know he had and subtract what he used, add to that the home based capacity to produce... it is pretty clear two things...some KNEW he had...all guessed they'd find... but where did saddam's airforce sit out the war? they bugged out to neighbouring syria and a few even to iran...oddly enough, there are roads to those countries as well... the question isn't weather Saddam HAD those weapons..the question was were they already moved out of the country when we invaded, and if not... which of his neighbours did have them.. Saddam wasn't taken out becuase of WMD, he was taken out because he was making back door deals with syria and through syria to iran to form a coalition of extremist islaimist terrorsits to share power and usher in a caliphate. To take over all the oil...
irrelevant to me about the rhetoric from both sides... relevent was Bin Laden's promise of more attacks, rogue states that sponsored terrorists, and the fact that after the invasions, no further successful 9/11 attacks on our soil. If the goal was to prevent further 9/11 styled attacks here, then the rhetoric, politicing and media BS aside... the mission was successful. I'm not gonna stop recognizing what works because nobody wants to tell t he truth...
The truth is was and continues to be that the world relies on oil... nukes are dangerous and powerful, and Islamic extremists in control of both nukes and world oil supplies will cause WW3 and a death toll unprecedented in the history of this world. Better to stop the next Hitler from gaining power in the Middle East than to wait until it's too late and deal with him later...

[stanleyk]

Wow lots of paranoia here. As far as Saddam's vast cache of WMD, when you show it to me I'll believe it. Other than that you just have your belief that it existed. Facts trump belief. All is see is a giant mess we created in Iraq and maybe a trillion or more tax dollars flushed down the commode.

I'd trust Obama to deal with Iran more than the any GOP clown. He's the one who actually killed Osama Bin Laden. Bush dithered around for 8 years and did nothing but waste my tax dollars and untold thousands of lives.

[Wheatfield]

Don't worry about this guy mate....he NEVER has ANYTHING positive to say about America....he'll probably even defend Iran if they lobbed a Nuke in his backyard.
Cheers, Pickles.

Can you come up with anything other that personal attacks?
If the best you can do is be a troll, you really should look at buying a bridge to hide under.

[D0n]

Wow lots of paranoia here. As far as Saddam's vast cache of WMD, when you show it to me I'll believe it. Other than that you just have your belief that it existed. Facts trump belief. All is see is a giant mess we created in Iraq and maybe a trillion or more tax dollars flushed down the commode.

I'd trust Obama to deal with Iran more than the any GOP clown. He's the one who actually killed Osama Bin Laden. Bush dithered around for 8 years and did nothing but waste my tax dollars and untold thousands of lives.

the facts about what chemical weapons he had used on the kurds are well know, and proven... I bet the Kurds wish we had acted sooner... anyways, the facts that Syria saved his airforce from being decimated shows a level of co-operation that could have easily been extended to armour and chemical weapons....
and what was that thing in Syria that the Israelis bombed in a pre-emptive strike? oh yeah.. an illegal reactor..
The evidence is there.....
look for it.
Also...
Syria and Iran are both gonna be toppled in the next three years... one way or another... just watch... if thier own people don't get them, some one else will..

[Wheatfield]

We know he had wmd..we sold them to him...lol we know he used them..take what we know he had and subtract what he used, add to that the home based capacity to produce... it is pretty clear two things...some KNEW he had...all guessed they'd find... but where did saddam's airforce sit out the war? they bugged out to neighbouring syria and a few even to iran...oddly enough, there are roads to those countries as well... the question isn't weather Saddam HAD those weapons..the question was were they already moved out of the country when we invaded, and if not... which of his neighbours did have them.. Saddam wasn't taken out becuase of WMD, he was taken out because he was making back door deals with syria and through syria to iran to form a coalition of extremist islaimist terrorsits to share power and usher in a caliphate. To take over all the oil...
irrelevant to me about the rhetoric from both sides... relevent was Bin Laden's promise of more attacks, rogue states that sponsored terrorists, and the fact that after the invasions, no further successful 9/11 attacks on our soil. If the goal was to prevent further 9/11 styled attacks here, then the rhetoric, politicing and media BS aside... the mission was successful. I'm not gonna stop recognizing what works because nobody wants to tell t he truth...
The truth is was and continues to be that the world relies on oil... nukes are dangerous and powerful, and Islamic extremists in control of both nukes and world oil supplies will cause WW3 and a death toll unprecedented in the history of this world. Better to stop the next Hitler from gaining power in the Middle East than to wait until it's too late and deal with him later...

Yeah, we sold them to him (well actually, we didn't, but the USA and a few other countries did (sorry Picklebrain, but it's not USA bashing to tell the truth)).
Does this make us better for doing it?
The UN was in Iraq for some 6 months looking for WMDs and found nothing. Nada. No evidence of WMDs. So, since there were none, they came up with another excuse, which was that Saddam had used them.
Twenty years prior, he had used them.
The USA under George Bush had decided that the facts weren't going to get in his way.
Like you, he chose to believe something that wasn't borne out by the facts. The result was several hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens who had done nothing other than making the mistake of being born in the wrong country, the American economy got trashed because the war was fought on borrowed money, a few thousand American soldiers were killed, the countryside of Iraq is now poisoned by toxic Uranium waste from America's depleted Uranium shells, and the world is no more safe now than it was a decade ago.

You need to come up with some citations regarding your lunatic rants. Iran and Iraq have not been friends, they fought a long and bitter war. It's pretty unlikely that they would team up for anything.
If you want people to start telling the truth, you should probably start practicing the truth yourself. Right now, all you are doing is raving hysterically and not coming up with a snippet of facts to back yourself up.
Just because you have chosen to believe something doesn't make it the truth.
My niece believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, I'm sure she'll outgrow it.
Will you?

the facts about what chemical weapons he had used on the kurds are well know, and proven... I bet the Kurds wish we had acted sooner... anyways, the facts that Syria saved his airforce from being decimated shows a level of co-operation that could have easily been extended to armour and chemical weapons....
and what was that thing in Syria that the Israelis bombed in a pre-emptive strike? oh yeah.. an illegal reactor..
The evidence is there.....
look for it.
Also...
Syria and Iran are both gonna be toppled in the next three years... one way or another... just watch... if thier own people don't get them, some one else will..

So you are concerned about Iran having an "illegal" reactor, but not about Israel having "illegal" nuclear bombs?
Are you really this much of an idiot?
Saddam gassed the Kurds a full 20 years prior to the USA marching into Iraq guns blazing. I'l bet the kurds wished they hadn't befriended us in the first place, since this is what directly led to their being gassed, had wished that the USA and others hadn't sold Hussein the stuff in the first place, which made it possible for them to be gassed, and perhaps hadn't waited a full two decades to decide that justice needed to be done.
The whole thing with the poison gas is a red herring. the USA enabled it, the USA encouraged it by selling the stuff, and the USA did nothing about it for twenty years, which says volumes about what they thought about it.
Why, pray tell, do you think the USA sold poison gas to Saddam in the first place? Did they think he wanted it for swimming pool chemistry or something? You can't sell something to someone and then sit back like a pious moron and complain that he used whatever it was that you sold him. That is just being retarded.

[D0n]

Yeah, we sold them to him (well actually, we didn't, but the USA and a few other countries did (sorry Picklebrain, but it's not USA bashing to tell the truth)).
Does this make us better for doing it?
The UN was in Iraq for some 6 months looking for WMDs and found nothing. Nada. No evidence of WMDs. So, since there were none, they came up with another excuse, which was that Saddam had used them.
Twenty years prior, he had used them.
The USA under George Bush had decided that the facts weren't going to get in his way.
Like you, he chose to believe something that wasn't borne out by the facts. The result was several hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens who had done nothing other than making the mistake of being born in the wrong country, the American economy got trashed because the war was fought on borrowed money, a few thousand American soldiers were killed, the countryside of Iraq is now poisoned by toxic Uranium waste from America's depleted Uranium shells, and the world is no more safe now than it was a decade ago.

You need to come up with some citations regarding your lunatic rants. Iran and Iraq have not been friends, they fought a long and bitter war. It's pretty unlikely that they would team up for anything.
If you want people to start telling the truth, you should probably start practicing the truth yourself. Right now, all you are doing is raving hysterically and not coming up with a snippet of facts to back yourself up.
Just because you have chosen to believe something doesn't make it the truth.
My niece believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, I'm sure she'll outgrow it.
Will you?



So you are concerned about Iran having an "illegal" reactor, but not about Israel having "illegal" nuclear bombs?
Are you really this much of an idiot?
Saddam gassed the Kurds a full 20 years prior to the USA marching into Iraq guns blazing. I'l bet the kurds wished they hadn't befriended us in the first place, since this is what directly led to their being gassed, had wished that the USA and others hadn't sold Hussein the stuff in the first place, which made it possible for them to be gassed, and perhaps hadn't waited a full two decades to decide that justice needed to be done.
The whole thing with the poison gas is a red herring. the USA enabled it, the USA encouraged it by selling the stuff, and the USA did nothing about it for twenty years, which says volumes about what they thought about it.
Why, pray tell, do you think the USA sold poison gas to Saddam in the first place? Did they think he wanted it for swimming pool chemistry or something? You can't sell something to someone and then sit back like a pious moron and complain that he used whatever it was that you sold him. That is just being retarded.

Retarded is a negative toned derogatory remark meant to make fun of people who's IQ' fallow below the minimum needed to function, usually an iq of 70 or lower... it is a term used seriously only by bullies, and bigots.

What you're doing is defending the guy who used the poison gas..... while defending the guys intent on using nukes on thier neighbours... there are some people that must not be allowed to have certain types of weapons... The israelis have proven they CAN be trusted with nuclear technology.... The same way we and the soviets used the threat of mutual annihilation as a deterrent for full out war... Israel's defence capabilities have maintained a balance that have prevented more deaths by preventing another major war from being launched to wipe the Israelis off the map.

I see you position as based largely on your willingness to ignore facts and embrace what ever propaganda fits your beliefs.. so you resort to name calling when I don't subscribe to your particular brand of kool aid... You do realize I'm laughing my ass of at you, do you not?

[pickles]

Can you come up with anything other that personal attacks?
If the best you can do is be a troll, you really should look at buying a bridge to hide under.

As I've said to you before, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS here my friend....simply because I DO NOT KNOW YOU.
You just need to have a look at your posts to see that I am correct....quote me one of your posts when you have praised the U.S......fact is, you NEVER do mate.....you're all one sided......you never give the U.S. any credit for ANYTHING......show me a post of yours where you've praised the U.S.
I'm not making personal attacks, but I disagree with your "attitude"...BIG TIME.
Of course, I do realize absolutely that you have a right to voice your "opinions", however biased they may be......as do I.
"A bridge to hide under"?......Agree with you there.......if too many people had your "enthusiastic" attitude to Iran, I might just need one.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Wheatfield]

Retarded is a negative toned derogatory remark meant to make fun of people who's IQ' fallow below the minimum needed to function, usually an iq of 70 or lower... it is a term used seriously only by bullies, and bigots.

Deflection. You can stop now. That dog don't hunt.

What you're doing is defending the guy who used the poison gas..... while defending the guys intent on using nukes on thier neighbours... there are some people that must not be allowed to have certain types of weapons... The israelis have proven they CAN be trusted with nuclear technology.... The same way we and the soviets used the threat of mutual annihilation as a deterrent for full out war... Israel's defence capabilities have maintained a balance that have prevented more deaths by preventing another major war from being launched to wipe the Israelis off the map.

I see you position as based largely on your willingness to ignore facts and embrace what ever propaganda fits your beliefs.. so you resort to name calling when I don't subscribe to your particular brand of kool aid... You do realize I'm laughing my ass of at you, do you not?

No, what I'm doing is asking why one would think selling a country poison gas is OK, and then get pious when they use what they have been sold. I don't like that Saddam gassed a population, but I refuse to allow anyone who sold him the wherewithal to make the stuff to claim any sort of innocence.
If we sold him the stuff, then we have absolutely no right to say anything about his using it.
The Israelis won't even admit to having nuclear weapons. How can you say they can be trusted, when they won't even admit to having the things.
Laugh all you like. Fools tend to do that.

BTW, you have several unanswered questions to address, if you have the mental ability to do so.