NationStates Jolt Archive

The only countries that identified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization were United States, Canada, Israel, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Australia

Then he will know that it is a great country (Although Arab) kindly do not make generalizations.

The country maybe nice but what is the UAE's relationship with Israel?

@AC2: I have to agree... your comment was slightly racist and a major (incorrect) generalization.

@Slyth: You didn't respond to our (IDF's) point at all by your comment. Ours was refuting something - you can't change what it is meant to be about and then say you responded.

Well one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter, that is why I consider the IDF the terrorists is the recent Hezbollah conflict, they are the one's after all who killed more civilians than Hezbollah did. And Hezbollah I consider the freedom fighters, they are fighting to stop the spread of Zionist colonies in the region.

I countered the point that Iran would not worry about the consequences. It was a response.

Well one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter, that is why I consider the IDF the terrorists is the recent Hezbollah conflict, they are the one's after all who killed more civilians than Hezbollah did. And Hezbollah I consider the freedom fighters, they are fighting to stop the spread of Zionist colonies in the region.

Please shut up.

@AC2: I have to agree... your comment was slightly racist and a major (incorrect) generalization.

The comment was in no way racist at all. As to generalizations, how is it generalizing since most of the Arab governments hate Israel?

Well one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter, that is why I consider the IDF the terrorists is the recent Hezbollah conflict, they are the one's after all who killed more civilians than Hezbollah did. And Hezbollah I consider the freedom fighters, they are fighting to stop the spread of Zionist colonies in the region.

You know you should really stop when people on both sides of the argument are dismissing your BS.

Please shut up.

Don't flamebait.

Well one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter, that is why I consider the IDF the terrorists is the recent Hezbollah conflict, they are the one's after all who killed more civilians than Hezbollah did. And Hezbollah I consider the freedom fighters, they are fighting to stop the spread of Zionist colonies in the region.

Israel isn't colonizing Lebanon, they're colonizing the West Bank and Gaza.

Well one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter, that is why I consider the IDF the terrorists is the recent Hezbollah conflict, they are the one's after all who killed more civilians than Hezbollah did. And Hezbollah I consider the freedom fighters, they are fighting to stop the spread of Zionist colonies in the region.

Can the racist shit and bone up on politics before spouting insane shit that you know absolutely nothing about.

Here's a brilliant idea- if Iran gives a nuke to Hezbollah, then Israel should give a nuke to the Mojaheddin al-Khaliq. You know, as a sort of quid-pro-quo.

Please shut up.

I agree with Slythros here.

Israel isn't colonizing Lebanon, they're colonizing the West Bank and Gaza.

Actually, that is only half true.

slythros has a point. how many wars has iran started? what actual bad things have they done recently?

sure they LOOOOVE that proxy war by using hezbollah as their puppet thing but look at the crappy stuff they gave them. hezbollah was never going to be able to do serious damage to israel. they didnt have the arms to do so.

where is the evidence that iran would ever give hezbollah (or whatever puppet group) anything that could start a real war that iran would have to participate in?

sure the president of iran talks tough (and crazy) but that doesnt mean he has the power to do anything.

all im saying is that he has a point
I think you have a good point.

The point of my post was that Iran could concievably give Hezbollah a nuke and we wouldn't be able to definitively say Iran did it. The point was to counter the argument that Iran wouldn't do it because of the consequences. My post pointed out Iran can get away with it possibly and thus would be more likely to do it.
In a couple of years, if Iran gets the technology to build nukes and a nuke just happens to blow up in Tel Aviv, you can expect nukes to drop on Teheran shortly after - even with inconclusive evidence. And I think the Iranians see this scenario as well.

You know you should really stop when people on both sides of the argument are dismissing your BS.

Seriously, hes inflicting a lot damage on all the people/arguments which are critical of Israel.

Please shut up.
Thanks reactionary.

The only countries that identified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization were United States, Canada, Israel, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Australia

This here is an example (sorry for picking on you as almost everyone in the thread has done it by now) of quoting something but not giving the full story.

It would sound like only six nations believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. However, this is because Hezbollah also has members of parliament and such. This is not to say, however, that other nations don't believe there is a part of Hezbollah that is terrorist based or that they have carried out terrorist activities (as Britain has done by recognizing separate branches, political and terrorist). Furthermore, the EU parliament has passed a resolution recognizing clear evidence of terrorist activities by Hezbollah and has urged the EU Council as well as the governments of European nations to recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (if at least in part).

Seriously, hes inflicting a lot damage on all the people/arguments which are critical of Israel.

Wait, then I should be encouraging him:p

Thanks reactionary.

Maybe If we ignore him, he'll go away. Let's try it.

Maybe If we ignore him, he'll go away. Let's try it.

agreed.

If you think about it, he's actually encouraging cohesiveness because we all agree about him.

Fact remains DMG, Hezbollah is not globally recognized as a terrorist organization, and the only people who do recognize it as such are basically the pro-Israel countries.

I've got another brilliant idea- let's give a boatload of cash to all the Kurds, Communists, and Shah-supporters who are trying to overthrough the Islamic Republic?

If you think about it, he's actually encouraging cohesiveness because we all agree about him.

which is ironic for this board that everyone pretty much wants him to go away.

I've got another brilliant idea- let's give a boatload of cash to all the Kurds, Communists, and Shah-supporters who are trying to overthrough the Islamic Republic?

sorry. they're living in America.

I've got another brilliant idea- let's give a boatload of cash to all the Kurds, Communists, and Shah-supporters who are trying to overthrough the Islamic Republic?

What are you trying to do? Get killed?

sorry. they're living in America.

Don't forgot all the Mojaheddin al-Khalik exiles holed up in Ashraf City, Iraq...

I've got to leave for now, be back later.

Fact remains DMG, Hezbollah is not globally recognized as a terrorist organization, and the only people who do recognize it as such are basically the pro-Israel countries.

So basically all of the west? Damn all those western nations!

*uses the term west in the archaic and politically incorrect sense of Europe and America

Now that wasn't too hard. I wish everyone would fo that instead of "g2g brb"

If you think about it, he's actually encouraging cohesiveness because we all agree about him.

so while we wait for him to get tired being ignored....

your family is from iran? have you ever had a chance to visit?

i think its a terrible thing that US policy ended up making iran our enemy.

I've got another brilliant idea- let's give a boatload of cash to all the Kurds, Communists, and Shah-supporters who are trying to overthrough the Islamic Republic?

Your fuking kidding me right? So you're saying you want Pakistan to be overthrown??? Excuse you, but I am 50% Muslim. (honest to god)

I visit every summer and winter. I was born there. Now I really have to go.

So basically all of the west? Damn all those western nations!

*uses the term west in the archaic and politically incorrect sense of Europe and America

* Reiterates not globally recognized as terrorists *

Your fuking kidding me right? So you're saying you want Pakistan to be overthrown??? Excuse you, but I am 50% Muslim. (honest to god)

Iran, not Pakistan..

i think its a terrible thing that US policy ended up making iran our enemy.

Yeah, booting Mossadegh was a bad idea.

hezbollah seems to me to be at least three somewhat different things at once. they are a political party, a very strong substate conventional military(possibly the strongest in the world, i don't know who else would be close maybe the tamil tigers) and a terrorist organization. i don't see how you can deny the terrorist element, they are virtually the archetype of modern terrorists and certainly a role model for al queada. on the other hand i think it is too easy to dismiss them as a serious political and military force because of the terrorist label. they did actually withstand an isreali attack better than most arab states have.

Yeah, booting Mossadegh was a bad idea.

agreed.

hezbollah seems to me to be at least three somewhat different things at once. they are a political party, a very strong substate conventional military(possibly the strongest in the world, i don't know who else would be close maybe the tamil tigers) and a terrorist organization. i don't see how you can deny the terrorist element, they are virtually the archetype of modern terrorists and certainly a role model for al queada. on the other hand i think it is too easy to dismiss them as a serious political and military force because of the terrorist label. they did actually withstand an isreali attack better than most arab states have.

Don't Forget that they are also a multimedia conglomerate with a satellite TV station, radio, newspapers, and a computer software company. (they made Special Force, a FPS were you play as a Hezbollah militant fighting Israel)

Iran, not Pakistan..

"The Islamic Republic of Pakistan." is an Islamic Republic. You stated that you wanted to "overthrow all Islamic Republics."

no, israel would take out the iranian threat and the rest of the world would sleep better at night while cursing them during the day.

I think with the radioactive fallout from using nukes would have quite a few neighbours of Iran being fairly upset enough to warrant a more ferocious response.

China and Russia as well would not take too kindly to losing a good source of oil thanks to Israeli nukes.

* Reiterates not globally recognized as terrorists *

Correct you are then.

Then again, neither is Al Qaeda.

I think with the radioactive fallout from using nukes would have quite a few neighbours of Iran being fairly upset enough to warrant a more ferocious response.

China and Russia as well would not take too kindly to losing a good source of oil thanks to Israeli nukes.

1/15th of the force of Hiroshima bomb. Does not sound like to me, they'll be losing resources over it. Also, it is underground to thus fallout will be mostly contained.

I've got another brilliant idea- let's give a boatload of cash to all the Kurds, Communists, and Shah-supporters who are trying to overthrough the Islamic Republic?

When I say THE Islamic Republic, I am refering to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I think with the radioactive fallout from using nukes would have quite a few neighbours of Iran being fairly upset enough to warrant a more ferocious response.

China and Russia as well would not take too kindly to losing a good source of oil thanks to Israeli nukes.

I am not sure whether the fallout would reach neighboring nations or not.

Somehow I doubt Russia and China are going to attack Israel.

I think with the radioactive fallout from using nukes would have quite a few neighbours of Iran being fairly upset enough to warrant a more ferocious response.

China and Russia as well would not take too kindly to losing a good source of oil thanks to Israeli nukes.

if the plan was to turn iran into a glassy parking lot, that would be very true.

thats not the plan.

hezbollah seems to me to be at least three somewhat different things at once. they are a political party, a very strong substate conventional military(possibly the strongest in the world, i don't know who else would be close maybe the tamil tigers) and a terrorist organization. i don't see how you can deny the terrorist element, they are virtually the archetype of modern terrorists and certainly a role model for al queada. on the other hand i think it is too easy to dismiss them as a serious political and military force because of the terrorist label. they did actually withstand an isreali attack better than most arab states have.

Well, you can question the legitimacy of their military. Not sure how many nations have two separate militaries, especially one that isn't sanctioned by the full government and has been ordered to give up their arms by the UN.

Does anybody realise the irony of bombing a nuke factory with nukes? :headbang:

Hello, potential radioactive catastrophe...

When I say THE Islamic Republic, I am refering to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Ok fine. I see your point.


No one in the United States takes the time to notice how horrible we actually were. 2 genocides created by us.

1) Slave Trade-hundreds of millions died on the boats JUST GETTING to the Americas.

2) The 2 Atomic Bombs- Around 140,000 innocent civilians.

1) Slave Trade-hundreds of millions died on the boats JUST GETTING to the Americas.

If it was before 1776, it was done by Britain. The Slave Trade was outlawed in the very early 1800s in the US.

2) The 2 Atomic Bombs- Around 140,000 innocent civilians.

Not all those people were innocent. Army personnel died in the blasts too. And that is not a genocide.

1) Slave Trade-hundreds of millions died on the boats JUST GETTING to the Americas.

2) The 2 Atomic Bombs- Around 140,000 innocent civilians.

You don't have to tell me either. I go to an extremely liberal school where this type of information is forced upon us like we were anorexic and it was food.

No one in the United States takes the time to notice how horrible we actually were. 2 genocides created by us.

1) Slave Trade-hundreds of millions died on the boats JUST GETTING to the Americas.

2) The 2 Atomic Bombs- Around 140,000 innocent civilians.

Not to mention how we treated the natives, whole tribes were wiped out, one of the few truly successful genocides.

You don't have to tell me either. I go to an extremely liberal school where this type of information is forced upon us like we were anorexic and it was food.

Thank God I do not go to that school! I would have a field day with the professors :D

If it was before 1776, it was done by Britain. The Slave Trade was outlawed in the very early 1800s in the US.



Not all those people were innocent. Army personnel died in the blasts too. And that is not a genocide.

1) Then how did we accept them for the plantations in the South? eh?


2) The majority of them were. The US's plan was to hit the Japanese populace acculating as many civilians as possible.

If it was before 1776, it was done by Britain. The Slave Trade was outlawed in the very early 1800s in the US.

Not all those people were innocent. Army personnel died in the blasts too. And that is not a genocide.

We might have banned the Slave Trade by the early 1800s, but we were one of the last nations to ban slavery (and the slave trade for that matter).

Good point (more than half sarcastic). Though you are right about it not being genocide.

Not to mention how we treated the natives, whole tribes were wiped out, one of the few truly successful genocides.

That I will agree with.

We could debate about slavery and about US nuclear policy in WWII, but let's do it in another thread.

1) Then how did we accept them for the plantations in the South? eh?

The plantations were around before the War for Independence.

2) The majority of them were. The US's plan was to hit the Japanese populace acculating as many civilians as possible.

And yet, it saved many more Japanese than the bombs took. The firebombings of Tokyo killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

We could debate about slavery and about US nuclear policy in WWII, but let's do it in another thread.

Yea!! What that guy said!

We could debate about slavery and about US nuclear policy in WWII, but let's do it in another thread.

Oh please. Not another atomic bomb thread. That debate pops up about once a month if not every couple of weeks.

The plantations were around before the War for Independence.



And yet, it saved many more Japanese than the bombs took. The firebombings of Tokyo killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

They were around up until the US Civil War.




Ok, I give you that.

Pakistan most likely, or they'll give nuclear weapons over to someone who will.

Pakistan under Busharraf won't do anything of that sort.

Maybe if Aslam Beg (he advocated a nuclear umbrella for Iran) type generals come to power (very unlikely) maybe there will be some noise...but it would still be noise and nothing else. sunni Pakistan and shia Iran have convergent interests and worldviews.

Another tiny little thing is the capability. Their missiles may have the range but suffer poor CEP....plus the little that China gave have to be saved for us vile kufrs not for the joooos...:p

Ok fine. I see your point.


No one in the United States takes the time to notice how horrible we actually were. 2 genocides created by us.

1) Slave Trade-hundreds of millions died on the boats JUST GETTING to the Americas.

2) The 2 Atomic Bombs- Around 140,000 innocent civilians.

?

1) Every country in the -world- had slave trades, then entire African continent is what it is today because of European Imperialism and lucrative trades like slaving and using the locals as cheap labor in mines, which still goes on today with the diamond mines!

2) The Atomic bombs were a -necessary- end to a war that would have cost -alot- more than 140,000 lives, civilian and military, if America had tried an amphibious assault on the Japanese mainland. They were already doing kamikaze attacks and such, death before dishonor, and many Japanese civilians would have taken up arms and done the same thing had we invaded and occupied.

Alright, again I say debate it in another thread.

As well as I am done with this thread until someone else brings up another point that needs refuting. Do call if you spot this.

?

1) Every country in the -world- had slave trades, then entire African continent is what it is today because of European Imperialism and lucrative trades like slaving and using the locals as cheap labor in mines, which still goes on today with the diamond mines!

2) The Atomic bombs were a -necessary- end to a war that would have cost -alot- more than 140,000 lives, civilian and military, if America had tried an amphibious assault on the Japanese mainland. They were already doing kamikaze attacks and such, death before dishonor, and many Japanese civilians would have taken up arms and done the same thing had we invaded and occupied.



1) I ALREADY SAID OK!


2) It was the United States that actually started the idea of Kamikazees. And we already were on the brink of victory. They won in Europe (V-E Day) and Japan was on the verge of defeat (Soon to be V-F Day)

No one in the United States takes the time to notice how horrible we actually were. 2 genocides created by us.

1) Slave Trade-hundreds of millions died on the boats JUST GETTING to the Americas.

2) The 2 Atomic Bombs- Around 140,000 innocent civilians.

What the fuck does that have to do with this thread?

What the fuck does that have to do with this thread?

1) Don't flamebait, unless you want to get banned.

2) Please read the 20 pages and then comment before jumping in.

1) Don't flamebait, unless you want to get banned.


I don't know what definition of flamebaiting your reading.

1) Don't flamebait, unless you want to get banned.

2) Please read the 20 pages and then comment before jumping in.

1) I'm not flamebaiting I asked you a question. Don't think you can intimidate me by suggesting I could get banned. Colorful language is not flamebaiting, nor is it grounds to get banned on.

2) I have read, and participated in this thread from the start. In case you didn't read the title (Fox news says Israel planning a nuclear strike on Iran) this thread is not about supposed American genocides, but about a possible Israeli nuclear strike. I fail to see what those two things have to do with anything in this thread.

If you want to talk about that then please do so in another thread, and don't hijack this one.

1) Don't flamebait, unless you want to get banned.

2) Please read the 20 pages and then comment before jumping in.

pardon me?

he didnt have to read 20 pages to know that it has NOTHING to do with the thread.

if you want to talk about slavery or the atomic bomb, start a new thread dont hijack this one.

1) I'm not flamebaiting I asked you a question. Don't think you can intimidate me by suggesting I could get banned. Colorful language is nor flamebaiting, not is it grounds to get banned on.

2) I have read, and participated in this thread from the start. In case you didn't read the title (Fox news says Israel planning a nuclear strike on Iran) this thread is not about supposed American genocides, but about a possible Israeli nuclear strike. I fail to see what those two things have to do with anything in this thread.

If you want to talk about that then please do so in another thread, and don't hijack this one.

And his post regarding the American bombs can be relevent to this discussion as it was the only time nukes have been used in warfare.

I don't know what definition of flamebaiting your reading.

Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group with the intent of provoking an angry response.

And his post regarding the American bombs can be relevent to this discussion as it was the only time nukes have been used in warfare.

The context was not relevant.

Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group with the intent of provoking an angry response.

and how was that a flamebait?

If you think its a flamebait, report it in the mod. Forum.

Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group with the intent of provoking an angry response.

How is that provoking an angry response? Unless you're super sensitive and dont like people questioning you.

The article seems likely - they're planning for it, but they might not do it.

Realize that Israel considers its very existence threatened by the Iranian nuclear program. They will do whatever it takes to ensure their own survival.

Israel, do what you must. Lock and load :mp5:

___

JC#24

As you said, it's Faux News...I wouldn't take it seriously at all.

At least it wasnt by the Modern Socialist National Broadcasting Corrporation

Anyway its fairly riddiculous too disregard a story done by a major broadcasting entity. Theres too much at stake for them. Also i'm getting tired of all the FOX smearing. =/

As for Israel, they better make damn sure thier borders are secure and thier home guard units are mobilized, too prepare for the inevitable flood of Hezzbollah/Hamas and other pissed arabs too come flowing across the desert covered in detonators. (Too blunt I know...Its been a long day)

Go Israel.

Yeah, booting Mossadegh was a bad idea.

Much as he sucks, I agree.

At least it wasnt by the Modern Socialist National Broadcasting Corrporation


I like you. You're funny. :fluffle:

Go Israel.

umm...Ok.

At least it wasnt by the Modern Socialist National Broadcasting Corrporation

Anyway its fairly riddiculous too disregard a story done by a major broadcasting entity. Theres too much at stake for them. Also i'm getting tired of all the FOX smearing. =/

As for Israel, they better make damn sure thier borders are secure and thier home guard units are mobilized, too prepare for the inevitable flood of Hezzbollah/Hamas and other pissed arabs too come flowing across the desert covered in detonators. (Too blunt I know...Its been a long day)


Hey, New Ausha! What's up? Where have you been for like...ever?

umm...Ok.




Hey, New Ausha! What's up? Where have you been for like...ever?


Well ever since my naval fiasco with the whole invasion of Blackhelm, i've dawned my often used virtual paper bag with eye holes, and laid low in NSG. I'm also thinking of starting a good RP sometime soon.

I like you. You're funny. :fluffle:

Of course I have the utmost respect for the organization, this was too merely too make a point.

But thanks anyway.

Don't worry guys, Iran and Syria will teach the Zionists a lesson soon enough.

Don't worry guys, Iran and Syria will teach the Zionists a lesson soon enough.

Syria has lost every war against Israel to date. :rolleyes:

Don't worry guys, Iran and Syria will teach the Zionists a lesson soon enough.

I really hope you arent serious...

*waves mini Israeli flag*

Don't worry guys, Iran and Syria will teach the Zionists a lesson soon enough.


They've certainly got a real good record. How many wars have they won?...

48...67...73...

Lostem' all....

Hopefully This will occupy Iran for a little while and keep them from funding the Jihaddis in Iraq.

Don't worry guys, Iran and Syria will teach the Zionists a lesson soon enough.

And you don't find that prospect worrisome? Gee, that's... great for you, then. I guess. Not so good from where I'm sitting, but I'm kinda funny that way. Insofar as not wanting lots of dead people stinking up the place goes. 'Cause y'know, with the prospect of nukes flying around here, there and everywhere there's bound to be an awful lot of corpses. And I sure as Hell don't want to made into a corpse (or anyone else for that matter) over this Kindergarten crap.

I really hope you arent serious...

*waves mini Israeli flag*

*waves his circumsized member*


Arr!

:D

As you said, it's Faux News...I wouldn't take it seriously at all.


Yeah, if it isn't liberal it must be bad. You keep thinking like that.:rolleyes:


As for Israel, they have done things like that before. So is this a shock?

And you don't find that prospect worrisome? Gee, that's... great for you, then. I guess. Not so good from where I'm sitting, but I'm kinda funny that way. Insofar as not wanting lots of dead people stinking up the place goes. 'Cause y'know, with the prospect of nukes flying around here, there and everywhere there's bound to be an awful lot of corpses. And I sure as Hell don't want to made into a corpse (or anyone else for that matter) over this Kindergarten crap.

Pray the good guys** win.


**not the guy with the 30 letter long name who prophesies daily about wiping out the infidels, slaying the jews, etc.

I like you. You're funny. :fluffle:


It has gone far left and is owned in part by a French company.

Yeah, if it isn't liberal it must be bad. You keep thinking like that.:rolleyes:


As for Israel, they have done things like that before. So is this a shock?


What was it, 67 when they preemptively invaded egypt after seeing how they were building up for another regional war?

Yeah, if it isn't liberal it must be bad. You keep thinking like that.:rolleyes:


As for Israel, they have done things like that before. So is this a shock?

Reinforcments have arrived! :D

*waves his circumsized member*


Arr!

:D

Quick children get inside! And get my pepperspray!!

Pray the good guys** win.


**not the guy with the 30 letter long name who prophesies daily about wiping out the infidels, slaying the jews, etc.

And you can stow the 'good guys' line while you're at it. Like I said, I don't especially wanna be made dead over other peoples' Kindergarten crap. There ain't no 'good guys' anywhere to be seen.

And you can stow the 'good guys' line while you're at it. Like I said, I don't especially wanna be made dead over other peoples' Kindergarten crap. There ain't no 'good guys' anywhere to be seen.

Eh? What kindergarden crap? We have a person who wants Israel destroyed and this is what...fun and Games to you? You hear it so often, that it makes it childish, is that it?

And you can stow the 'good guys' line while you're at it. Like I said, I don't especially wanna be made dead over other peoples' Kindergarten crap. There ain't no 'good guys' anywhere to be seen.

Ill take the State of Israel over extreme Islamic facists any day, thank you.

It's probably a Doom's Day scenario, not something you'd want to do unless Iran starts firing nukes at Israel first.

And you can stow the 'good guys' line while you're at it. Like I said, I don't especially wanna be made dead over other peoples' Kindergarten crap. There ain't no 'good guys' anywhere to be seen.

The State of Israel is the good guy. Iran and Syria are the BAD GUYS.

It's easy. The deranged Islamomaniac IS THE BADGUY! Hard to miss it. They hang girls who defend themselves from rape, etc. That's good eh?

This isn't Kindergarten crap dobbsey. Iran is a crazy out of control middle eastern nation who wouldn't mind nuking the world. You think Israel is on par with them? WTF mate...

The State of Israel is the good guy. Iran and Syria are the BAD GUYS.

It's easy. The deranged Islamomaniac IS THE BADGUY! Hard to miss it. They hang girls who defend themselves from rape, etc. That's good eh?

They hang gay people in public too. But Libbies still love Islam.

They hang gay people in public too. But Libbies still love Islam.

Those goddamn ass-munching muffin-fuckers. I knew that bitch Libby couldn't trusted with anything!

Yeah, if it isn't liberal it must be bad. You keep thinking like that.:rolleyes:

A) I'm not a liberal

B) I distrust CNN and the like as much as I distrust Faux

It's probably a Doom's Day scenario, not something you'd want to do unless Iran starts firing nukes at Israel first.

I think if it comes to Iran firing first it's already too late. In order to prevent the Western nations AND israel getting nuked it would involve preemptively nuking Iran, destroying their army, killing the leader, etc...

A) I'm not a liberal

B) I distrust CNN and the like as much as I distrust Faux


A) Riiiight. If the shoe fits wear it.


B) Is that so? Then why attack FOX more than CNN?

The State of Iran is the good guy. Israel and the US are the BAD GUYS.

It's easy. The deranged Racist Zionists ARE THE BADGUY! Hard to miss it. They shoot and bomb Arabs who defend themselves from attacks, etc. That's good eh?

This isn't Kindergarten crap dobbsey. Israel is a crazy out of control middle eastern nation who wouldn't mind nuking the world. You think Iran is on par with them? WTF mate...

Corrected.

They hang gay people in public too. But Libbies still love Islam.

Radical islam. Moderate Islam is fine. They're not into suicide bombing anyone, terrorism, etc.

Radical islam is where you get your trouble. Much like Radical Christianity.

IMHO both should be caught and sent to Gitmo.

Radical islam. Moderate Islam is fine. They're not into suicide bombing anyone, terrorism, etc.

Radical islam is where you get your trouble. Much like Radical Christianity.

IMHO both should be caught and sent to Gitmo.


Radical Islam is the brand in power in the middle east.

Eh? What kindergarden crap? We have a person who wants Israel destroyed and this is what...fun and Games to you? You hear it so often, that it makes it childish, is that it?

Yeah, 'cause the endless bickering, finger-pointing and posturing between the US and the USSR was just a laugh riot, boy lemme tell ya. Hoo boy, fun and games galore back then. Of course, it was Americans and Soviets who wanted each other destroyed, but it was all pretty much to the same overall effect. We narrowly avoided wiping ourselves out as a species over Cuba. I'm not at all persuaded that either side were the good guys then, and I sure as Hell am completely unconvinced in the case of the two equivalent, modern-day solitudes in question. So, fun and games? For sure. A wake-you-up-in-a-cold-sweat-in-the-dead-of-night great big ol' bucket o' fun, oh yes indeedy-do.

Childish, yes.

Corrected.


Because we all know Israel openly tells the west it plans to nuke them, waits for the 12th Rabbi to come (The PM says it's gonna be in 07), and supports terrorists.


Yep...

A) Riiiight. If the shoe fits wear it.


B) Is that so? Then why attack FOX more than CNN?

A) ?

B) CNN didn't report this, Fox did

A) ?

B) CNN didn't report this, Fox did



A) If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck..the odds are its a duck.


B) When have you ever attacked CNN? Name ONE time.

The Jewcrew is watching and listening. If it involves getting even with Iran, we're in.

A) You sound and think like a liberal.


B) When have you ever attacked CNN? Name ONE time.

Sonny jim, liberal means a thousand things on NSG.
America, Asian, European, African, Australian, South Eastern United States American? Which sort of liberal?

Yeah, 'cause the endless bickering, finger-pointing and posturing between the US and the USSR was just a laugh riot, boy lemme tell ya. Hoo boy, fun and games galore back then. Of course, it was Americans and Soviets who wanted each other destroyed, but it was all pretty much to the same overall effect. We narrowly avoided wiping ourselves out as a species over Cuba. I'm not at all persuaded that either side were the good guys then, and I sure as Hell am completely unconvinced in the case of the two equivalent, modern-day solitudes in question. So, fun and games? For sure. A wake-you-up-in-a-cold-sweat-in-the-dead-of-night great big ol' bucket o' fun, oh yes indeedy-do.

Childish, yes.

You don't understand the difference between the Cold War, and the Middle East conflict do you? Go on admit it, not like you'll look any dumber.

A) If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck..the odds are its a duck.


B) When have you ever attacked CNN? Name ONE time.

A) If you read some of my posts, you'll see that most of the time I lean towards the right or toward libertarianism.

B) Never on NSG, but link me to an appropriate thread, and I can fix that ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

Taken from Wiki but it well sourced. You'll still carry on about it but there you go.

That defense is so full of bullshit I could laugh.
"He meant the government should be wiped away." BIG difference. :rolleyes:
And you people buy this? Pathetic.

"Iranian president says Israel's days are numbered"
Numbered... Wait he must own a clock named Israel that has a dying battery right? The government is made up of the people. What Iran's going to pull an "Operation Israeli Freedom?" If the government is 'numbered' that must be SOMETHING BAD is going to happen to them.

Sonny jim, liberal means a thousand things on NSG.
America, Asian, European, African, Australian, South Eastern United States American? Which sort of liberal?



What? Read my post again. JACK!

The Jewcrew is watching and listening. If it involves getting even with Iran, we're in.

Oh yeah, whatcha gonna do? Parachute in dressed like ninjas? Or will it be more along these lines:

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW010307.jpg

You don't understand the difference between the Cold War, and the Middle East conflict do you? Go on admit it, not like you'll look any dumber.

Difference: No one really started the Cold War, Zionists started the Middle Eastern conflicts.

A) If you read some of my posts, you'll see that most of the time I lean towards the right or toward libertarianism.

B) Never on NSG, but link me to an appropriate thread, and I can fix that ;)


A) Libertarianism? ARe you a duck Congo? They are left wing in their morals, not right. Of course they are neither left wing nor right wing.


B) This site is left wing, I have yet to see anybody attack cnn over anything.

You don't understand the difference between the Cold War, and the Middle East conflict do you? Go on admit it, not like you'll look any dumber.

No go on, I've looked far dumber even when far more sober. I understand pissing your turf, and there's no fucking difference.

That defense is so full of bullshit I could laugh.
"He meant the government should be wiped away." BIG difference. :rolleyes:
And you people buy this? Pathetic.

"Iranian president says Israel's days are numbered"
Numbered... Wait he must own a clock named Israel that has a dying battery right? The government is made up of the people. What Iran's going to pull an "Operation Israeli Freedom?" If the government is 'numbered' that must be SOMETHING BAD is going to happen to them.

No, it's totally different. All the pro-Israel Zionists are saying Iran wants to wipe them off the map, they do not, they want to get rid of the Zionist regime that has hijacked Israel and caused nothing but trouble in the region.

Oh yeah, whatcha gonna do? Parachute in dressed like ninjas? Or will it be more along these lines:

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW010307.jpg

Support Israel.

Mullahs are not muslim. No seriously. They have no religion and are using Islam as a tool, and seriously they're not that stupid. They claim to be religious so they can have control. But in reality they only worship themselves and their own power.

Difference: No one really started the Cold War, Zionists started the Middle Eastern conflicts.
Yeah, by daring to live there.

Support Israel.

What is the Jew Crew? The NSG ADL?

No, it's totally different. All the pro-Israel Zionists are saying Iran wants to wipe them off the map, they do not, they want to get rid of the Zionist regime that has hijacked Israel and caused nothing but trouble in the region.


BS.

Do you realize how much Iran hates jews? It's not Israel, it's the jews.

Jews.

Jews.

Jews.


Ask AhamImapyschonutjob what he thinks of jews. He'll tell you he hates israel, hates jews, and that they are on the list to get nuked.

No, it's totally different. All the pro-Israel Zionists are saying Iran wants to wipe them off the map, they do not, they want to get rid of the Zionist regime that has hijacked Israel and caused nothing but trouble in the region.

If you buy that then you are indeed a moron.

A) Libertarianism? ARe you a duck Congo? They are left wing in their morals, not right. Of course they are neither left wing nor right wing.


B) This site is left wing, I have yet to see anybody attack cnn over anything.

A) Quack - I mean, no.

B) I mean, show me a thread where CNN is mentioned, and I'll take it from there. ;)

They claim to be religious so they can have control. But in reality they only worship themselves and their own power.


Yeah, by daring to live there.

The heathens! Sic the UN on them! Oh noes!!11! TEH ZIONISTS!!11!!


What is the Jew Crew? The NSG ADL?

It was a list of Jewish/Gentile NSG posters who supported Israel. I posted it a few months back. The list toppped 60, I beleive. I was the founding member.

That defense is so full of bullshit I could laugh.
"He meant the government should be wiped away." BIG difference. :rolleyes:
And you people buy this? Pathetic.

"Iranian president says Israel's days are numbered"
Numbered... Wait he must own a clock named Israel that has a dying battery right? The government is made up of the people. What Iran's going to pull an "Operation Israeli Freedom?" If the government is 'numbered' that must be SOMETHING BAD is going to happen to them.

Well, hopefully this guy won't be president for much longer, hes losing the support of his people. Also, Ahmadinejad has no power over the military, that power lies in the hands of the Mullahs, while not necessarily a good thing its better then in the hands of that moron.

Yeah, 'cause the endless bickering, finger-pointing and posturing between the US and the USSR was just a laugh riot, boy lemme tell ya. Hoo boy, fun and games galore back then. Of course, it was Americans and Soviets who wanted each other destroyed, but it was all pretty much to the same overall effect. We narrowly avoided wiping ourselves out as a species over Cuba. I'm not at all persuaded that either side were the good guys then, and I sure as Hell am completely unconvinced in the case of the two equivalent, modern-day solitudes in question. So, fun and games? For sure. A wake-you-up-in-a-cold-sweat-in-the-dead-of-night great big ol' bucket o' fun, oh yes indeedy-do.

Childish, yes.

Not to mention this is why everyone hates Canadians. You have all concluded that since there are no black hats or white hats all shades of grey must be the same.

Go live under stalinism, I heard that was super duper UBAR fantastic.

It was a list of Jewish/Gentile NSG posters who supported Israel. I posted it a few months back. The list toppped 60, I beleive. I was the founding member.

I think I remember that.

Support Israel.

Support undergarments. Makes as much sense. Or are you one of those Godless types who walk around 'commando'? If so, I'll have to either a) have some sort of death decree issued with your name attached, or b) have your house knocked over to put up a colony.

There are no 'good guys'. Stop feeding into (and off of) their endless schoolyard crap.

* Enter Generic Conservative Racist Zionist comment here *
Thanks for your well thought out comment, how much did you pay for it btw?

I think I remember that.

I know I do.

Thanks for your well thought out comment, how much did you pay for it btw?

Since I do not know what you are replying to, I am going to call you on your bullshit attempt to turn something I said into a racist post. Go peddle your talking points elsewhere.

Not to mention this is why everyone hates Canadians. You have all concluded that since there are no black hats or white hats all shades of grey must be the same.

Go live under stalinism, I heard that was super duper UBAR fantastic.

No, that's why you hate Canadians. And me, particularly. But that's okay.

Yeah, by daring to live there.
No, by daring to steal the sovereignty of Arab land, using some crumby pretext about Holocaust to enforce ethnic-nationalist oppression on the Palestinians.

No, by daring to steal the sovereignty of Arab land, using some crumby pretext about Holocaust to enforce ethnic-nationalist oppression on the Palestinians.

Except that you forget that some of the land was bought and paid for by the jews.

On top of that, no other arab state would allow the Palestinians inside their own country. So who is oppressing the Palestinians is really simple. BOTH SIDES are oppressing them.

I hope that Israel does attack the sites, especially when we know that Iran would do that same, only difference is that Iran is doing it to harm others....

Oh yeah, whatcha gonna do? Parachute in dressed like ninjas? Or will it be more along these lines:

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW010307.jpg

Erm, thats nice and all. Heres a horribly drawn version from my perspective.

http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=age1.jpg

EDIT: Poor spelling and grammar, my apologies. I slopped it together in paint. =/

:p

No, by daring to steal the sovereignty of Arab land, using some crumby pretext about Holocaust to enforce ethnic-nationalist oppression on the Palestinians.
The Russians stole the Germans' land after WW2. The Poles did it too. And the French. Yet I don't see German suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Alsace-Lorraine, East Prussia or Silesia. Let bygones be bygones. If you don't, this tells more about your level of civilization than anything else.

Support undergarments. Makes as much sense. Or are you one of those Godless types who walk around 'commando'? If so, I'll have to either a) have some sort of death decree issued with your name attached, or b) have your house knocked over to put up a colony.

There are no 'good guys'. Stop feeding into (and off of) their endless schoolyard crap.

BS. There ARE good guys. There are, however, no good guys with perfect squeaky clean records. We all screw up. But regardless, there ARE good guys.

US soldier-Good guy (Most of the time)

Iraqi Jihaddi? Bad guy.

Osama Bin Laden? Bad guy.

US marine? Good guy.

Iraqi Citizen? Good guy.

Canadian Soldier? Good guy.

Fred phelps? Bad guy.

Etc. THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD GUYS in this world. You, apparently, are color blind and beleive in the positivistic worldview.

Erm, thats nice and all. Heres a horribly drawn version from my perspective.

http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=age1.jpg

EDIT: Poor spelling and grammar, my apologies. I slopped it together in paint. =/

Ausha that is freakin' awesome :D

I gave you a 10 of 10.

No, by daring to steal the sovereignty of Arab land, using some crumby pretext about Holocaust to enforce ethnic-nationalist oppression on the Palestinians.

I hate Israel/Palestinian discussions on NSG because both sides end up becoming irrational but I still need to clear some things up anyways.

I don't know who said it but it's true that there are no true "good guys" in this conflict. I personally believe that Israel has only defended itself from terror but that being said it might have gone a little over the top. Israel is FAR from sqeaky (that how spell it?) clean. If you have any doubts go see Munich or read a book on the Mossad. They have done some badass and terrible things.

Furthermore the land was bought by Jews. This is true, Turks owned all the land as it was a part of the Ottoman empire. They then sold the worst bits of land (swamps, sandy areas, generally uncultivatable areas) to the Jews. The Jews gratefully bought it and made something of it.
Then the next argument "They forced Arabs out!" While there were some atrocities performed (most notably what Menachem Begin did) for the most part the Syrians left on their own accord with the urging of the Arab leaders who said that they would get their land back after they wiped the Jews out. (Boy were they wrong.)

Beyond that the UN had a imperfect solution in a partition that would have split up modern Israel (minus the stuff Israel rightfully won in the Six Day War). into two states one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs rejected it, they had no reason to reject it so they have NO right to complain about land lost (or at the most very little).

Moreover this clearly shows that Israel has the right to exist because of the UN, was gotten rightfully by Jews in the first 5 or 6 aliyot, and finally anybody who thinks Israel does not deserve to exist is an anti-semitic bastard.

(Whether Israel is right or not in it's dealings with the Palestinians is a completely different question)

Next rant:

Israel has done similar things before, they destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 (Ilan Ramon! may those who died on the Columbia be remembered forever). Also I don't think Israel would use nukes unless they were 100% certain that Iran did not have nukes. The idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, or you nuke us, we nuke you, we both die.) would prevent them from launching a nuke. As for attacking the reactors, I'm suprised Israel hasn't done that already.

Thank you for listening/reading.

Ausha that is freakin' awesome :D

I gave you a 10 of 10.

But what of the fact they have no hair? Or the fact they are completely out of human physical proportion? Ah well, "Rugrats" is still on the air isnt it?

Most likely a contingency plan, much as most every other country has for insane quantities of scenarios, hell, from what I've heard the US even has a nuclear strike package designed to incapacitate Germany if the need were to somehow arise.

I doubt that nukes would see use, as the escalation to such a level would be a severe quantitative shift in the region, most likely towards the negative for Israel.

I hate Israel/Palestinian discussions on NSG because both sides end up becoming irrational but I still need to clear some things up anyways.

I don't know who said it but it's true that there are no true "good guys" in this conflict. I personally believe that Israel has only defended itself from terror but that being said it might have gone a little over the top. Israel is FAR from sqeaky (that how spell it?) clean. If you have any doubts go see Munich or read a book on the Mossad. They have done some badass and terrible things.

Furthermore the land was bought by Jews. This is true, Turks owned all the land as it was a part of the Ottoman empire. They then sold the worst bits of land (swamps, sandy areas, generally uncultivatable areas) to the Jews. The Jews gratefully bought it and made something of it.
Then the next argument "They forced Arabs out!" While there were some atrocities performed (most notably what Menachem Begin did) for the most part the Syrians left on their own accord with the urging of the Arab leaders who said that they would get their land back after they wiped the Jews out. (Boy were they wrong.)

Beyond that the UN had a imperfect solution in a partition that would have split up modern Israel (minus the stuff Israel rightfully won in the Six Day War). into two states one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs rejected it, they had no reason to reject it so they have NO right to complain about land lost (or at the most very little).

Moreover this clearly shows that Israel has the right to exist because of the UN, was gotten rightfully by Jews in the first 5 or 6 aliyot, and finally anybody who thinks Israel does not deserve to exist is an anti-semitic bastard.

(Whether Israel is right or not in it's dealings with the Palestinians is a completely different question)

Next rant:

Israel has done similar things before, they destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 (Ilan Ramon! may those who died on the Columbia be remembered forever). Also I don't think Israel would use nukes unless they were 100% certain that Iran did not have nukes. The idea of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, or you nuke us, we nuke you, we both die.) would prevent them from launching a nuke. As for attacking the reactors, I'm suprised Israel hasn't done that already.

Thank you for listening/reading.

Everyone who is currently entrenched in debate, please read the quote.

Everyone who is currently entrenched in debate, please read the quote.

Israel has a right to exist? :eek:


Infidel!

Everyone who is currently entrenched in debate, please read the quote.

Yes, mother. :rolleyes:

Yes, mother. :rolleyes:

Don't be a bad sport.


;)

No, that's why you hate Canadians. And me, particularly. But that's okay.

Me and 60,000,000 brits sunshine.

You made your bed. Now lie in it gracefully. You are teh americans.

Erm, thats nice and all. Heres a horribly drawn version from my perspective.

http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=age1.jpg

EDIT: Poor spelling and grammar, my apologies. I slopped it together in paint. =/

Israel has a right to exist? :eek:


Infidel!

Are you guys capable of debate without relying on strawmen?

Don't be a bad sport.


;)

Aw gee whillickers, all the other kids get to roll their eyes on occasion.

That was a single surgical strike (justified too) not really a war

Right. So one nation dropping bombs on another country's territory is not an act of war?

What do you call that then? Delivering party favors? [/sarcasm]

So Iran could launch missiles at Israeli bases and that wouldn't be an act of war either would it? I mean, you don't think bombing another country's strategic assets is an act of war.

But if you do, just because it's Israel, you're a hypocrite.

Yes, mother. :rolleyes:

Maybe if people read more sensible and well thought posts, we'd get farther in these debates....Or maybe I took too much ectasy....

Are you guys capable of debate without relying on strawmen?

Erm, clarify for me mate.

Erm, clarify for me mate.

A strawman is a gross misrepresentation of your opponent's argument, usually to make it seem ridiculous or easy to defeat.

So like if I were to make a strawman of you and Poobie's argument:
"Oh, so the Arabs aren't people to you? they're just animals? Racist."

and just which countries do you think would be bother to respond? someone in EUROPE? not a chance.

pakistan? i dont think it could hit israel. china? nooooooooo. the US? obviously not.

no, israel would take out the iranian threat and the rest of the world would sleep better at night while cursing them during the day.

You really don't get it, do you? The US has the Defcon Multi-Deployment Program. Within seconds of reports that Israel used small nukes against Iran without permission a nuke would already be armed and primed and ready to be launched. Britain, though without a Defcon program, would do the exact same. So face it. Your state isn't so god dam impervious and you can't do whatever you want without thinking "Well, we'll be fine because the US is on our side!"

Me and 60,000,000 brits sunshine.

You made your bed. Now lie in it gracefully. You are teh americans.

Oh, goodie. The once-and-former absentee landlady is back. Pleased to make your acquaintance, you tight-faced old battleaxe, your majesty. Oh, you were speaking figuratively. Shucks.

Now kindly go blow it right out your nether regions, Mr. I-supposedly-speak-on-behalf-of-sixty-million-people.

Much to expand on this, back in the nineties, when it seemed like the NK's were getting close to the development of a bomb (the first time), President Clinton ordered the Air Force to run exercises on how to eliminate such weapons, and the infrastructure that would be needed to create them.

Did it ever happen? No.



Anyways, the old saying still goes "Work for the best, plan for the worst."

A strawman is a gross misrepresentation of your opponent's argument, usually to make it seem ridiculous or easy to defeat.

So like if I were to make a strawman of you and Poobie's argument:
"Oh, so the Arabs aren't people to you? they're just animals? Racist."

Ah thank you. In that case, a "strawman" sure can be entertaining eh? Trust me, I use educated and informed replies, in many of my rebuttals...that or blame a profound ectasy addicition...

Much to expand on this, back in the nineties, when it seemed like the NK's were getting close to the development of a bomb (the first time), President Clinton ordered the Air Force to run exercises on how to eliminate such weapons, and the infrastructure that would be needed to create them.

Did it ever happen? No.



Anyways, the old saying still goes "Work for the best, plan for the worst."

Yeah, I doubt Israel would nuke Iran, not unless it was the last of the last resorts. The IAF would bomb the enrichment facilities first.

Everyone who is currently entrenched in debate, please read the quote.
I see people picking on this comment, but not the quote above it. You'd have to be a retard not to see what this means. ;)

I see people picking on this comment, but not the quote above it. You'd have to be a retard not to see what this means. ;)

(uh oh, not getting the message here...think fast Jake...)

Myyy sleeves....thier soooo soffft....

Everyone who is currently entrenched in debate, please read the quote.What a bullshit. Of course there are good guys and bad guys in this. Israel is aggressive scum and history proves it. They impose their immigration and crude state on the locals for over 80 years now and call it righteous because of some idiotic biblical shit.
Iran would have every right to pursue enrichment for power plants and even nukes. Iran bas been threatened ever since it got rid of its US puppet government, and has been attacked by US ally Iraq. And now again the US is making threats and Israel is of course following its big friend and protector. Also it is pretty clear what the ultimate goal of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was (if they had succeeded): to target Iran. Iran has every right and reason to want nukes.

Israel denies everything (http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/208156), according to Jordanian newspaper Al Bawaba.

As I mentioned earlier, all this originated in The Times (NOT Fox News). Most media are now mostly commenting on The Times' article, but there are no new sources or reports. The websites of the BBC, France24, CNN and Al Jazeera don't seem interested in the story. I suppose either they don't consider it credible, or they're waiting until they've been able to verify it themselves.

For a variety of news reports on this issue, go here (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1112494011).

Israel denies everything (http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/208156), according to Jordanian newspaper Al Bawaba.

As I mentioned earlier, all this originated in The Times (NOT Fox News). Most media are now mostly commenting on The Times' article, but there are no new sources or reports. The websites of the BBC, France24, CNN and Al Jazeera don't seem interested in the story. I suppose either they don't consider it credible, or they're waiting until they've been able to verify it themselves.

For a variety of news reports on this issue, go here (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1112494011).Of course Israel denies this. What else do you expect? They have to deny it, no matter what's to it.

Of course Israel denies this. What else do you expect? They have to deny it, no matter what's to it.

Naturally. I'm merely providing further news sources for people who (understandably enough) might not want to rely solely on Fox for their news.

Iran says they want the nukes so I see it as Israel being obliged to offer one. :D

It was a list of Jewish/Gentile NSG posters who supported Israel. I posted it a few months back. The list toppped 60, I beleive. I was the founding member.
17 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11465572&postcount=1) - but who's counting? ;)
BS.

Do you realize how much Iran hates jews? It's not Israel, it's the jews.

Jews.

Jews.

Jews.


Ask AhamImapyschonutjob what he thinks of jews. He'll tell you he hates israel, hates jews, and that they are on the list to get nuked.
Prove it. Both that Iran - not Ahmadinejad, but Iran - hates the Jews, and that they're on a list to get nuked.

Why don't you start by asking the Iranian jews? Or the jewish member of the Iranian parliament?

Talked to him lately, by the way? Since you're so sure of what he would tell you?
Iran says they want the nukes so I see it as Israel being obliged to offer one. :D
Iran says they don't want the nukes. :rolleyes:

I hope that Israel does attack the sites, especially when we know that Iran would do that same, only difference is that Iran is doing it to harm others....

I have already explained, time and time again, why Iran will not use nukes. Refute my argument before just posting it again.

Much as he sucks, I agree.

Kindly explain how Mossadegh "sucks". He was a democratically elected, secular leader who attempted to end Britains exploitation of Iran's oil resources. America was afraid he would give it over to the communists because he wastoo demecratic, allowing the communist party to exist and take part, more than America did (see Mcarthy)

Iran says they want the nukes so I see it as Israel being obliged to offer one. :D

I'm just wondering if you realize that you are advocating the death of my family.

-snip-
Iran says they don't want the nukes. :rolleyes:

No what they say is the are seeking nuclear energy and in the same breath they state how they want Israel wiped off of the map.

No what they say is the are seeking nuclear energy and in the same breath they state how they want Israel wiped off of the map.

Ahmedinejad states that. He is not Iran. He has no power

I'm just wondering if you realize that you are advocating the death of my family.

Is your family right next to the Iranian facility being used to enrich the Uranium?

Ever heard of fallout? That mysterious thing called wind? They are close enough.

I have already explained, time and time again, why Iran will not use nukes. Refute my argument before just posting it again.

No, but certain...beneficiaries...of Iranian nuclear weapons technology would.

No, but certain...beneficiaries...of Iranian nuclear weapons technology would.Such as?

No, but certain...beneficiaries...of Iranian nuclear weapons technology would.

I have already replied to that arguement then either IDF or DMG responded to my reply, then I responded to their response.

No what they say is the are seeking nuclear energy and in the same breath they state how they want Israel wiped off of the map.

On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

Again, they don't say that they want nukes.

Me and 60,000,000 brits sunshine.

You made your bed. Now lie in it gracefully. You are teh americans.

Hey. We want nothing to do with Canadians. To call them American is an insult to all Americans.

Right. So one nation dropping bombs on another country's territory is not an act of war?

What do you call that then? Delivering party favors? [/sarcasm]

So Iran could launch missiles at Israeli bases and that wouldn't be an act of war either would it? I mean, you don't think bombing another country's strategic assets is an act of war.

But if you do, just because it's Israel, you're a hypocrite.

We dropped bombs on Libya and no war occured. Israel did the same to Iraq against the reactor. No war there either. We launched missiles into Afghanistan and that wasn't a war either. Just because some one does something with artillary against another does not mean that a war would erupt. It maybe an act of war, but unless a war is declared (either formally or authorized) it is not a war.

Hey. We want nothing to do with Canadians. To call them American is an insult to all Americans.

Canadians are american. They live in North America. And to tell the truth, I like Canada more than the U.S.

What a bullshit.

Nice description of yourself!

Of course there are good guys and bad guys in this. Israel is aggressive scum and history proves it.

:rolleyes: THis mantra is getting old and has been destroyed numerous times. Why is it that you keep repeating it? Face it! Israel wants to live in peace but her neighbors have caused numerous troubles. Not saying Israel is not entirely blameless in the aggrevation (Glares at Sharon) but in reality, the suicide/homicide bombers have done alot of damage to the peace process. Thank God/Allah that Abbas declared the Hamas militia illegal. Maybe now something will get done about them and get the peace process back on track.

They impose their immigration and crude state on the locals for over 80 years now and call it righteous because of some idiotic biblical shit.

Try nearly 60 dumbass as Israel has only been around for 60 years :rolleyes:

Iran would have every right to pursue enrichment for power plants and even nukes.

Wrong. Nuclear power they can legally have. Nuclear Bombs is forbidden to them according to the NPT. If you support their violation of International Law, then you have to support all violations of international law.

Iran has been threatened ever since it got rid of its US puppet government, and has been attacked by US ally Iraq.

Threatened by whom? The only nation to attack it was Iraq in 1979.

And now again the US is making threats and Israel is of course following its big friend and protector.

:rolleyes: I love your idiocracy. It is quite funny to read.

Also it is pretty clear what the ultimate goal of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was (if they had succeeded): to target Iran. Iran has every right and reason to want nukes.

Now that's a very good conspiracy you have going there.

On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

Again, they don't say that they want nukes.

Then why kick out the IAEA inspectors and move facilities underground?

Canadians are american. They live in North America. And to tell the truth, I like Canada more than the U.S.

I see sarcasm is lost on you. They live on the North American Continent true that however they refer to themselves as Canadians. :rolleyes:

Why is it that I disagree with everyone on my side of the argument? Usually i'm the most radical person on my side, not the most moderate.

I see sarcasm is lost on you. They live on the North American Continent true that however they refer to themselves as Canadians. :rolleyes:

Actually, it is. I am really bad at catching sarcasm.

I'm just wondering if you realize that you are advocating the death of my family.

You, my friend, do not exist. Neither, for that matter, do any of us on this forum. You see, by assuming a nonexistent identity, only that identity exists insofar as this forum is concerned. So, to us, you are simply Slythros, an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. Attempts to personalize the issue mean nothing, as without verification of your identity in the "real world," you are simply Slythros. Anonymity is a two-edged sword.

Canadians are american. They live in North America. And to tell the truth, I like Canada more than the U.S.

No, my friend, they are North American. Citizens of the United States of America are American.

You, my friend, do not exist. Neither, for that matter, do any of us on this forum. You see, by assuming a nonexistent identity, only that identity exists insofar as this forum is concerned. So, to us, you are simply Slythros, an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. Attempts to personalize the issue mean nothing, as without verification of your identity in the "real world," you are simply Slythros. Anonymity is a two-edged sword.

You're right actually, I was lying. I'm really a viking/aztec mix from Atlantis. You've caught me.

You're right actually, I was lying. I'm really a viking/aztec mix from Atlantis. You've caught me.

What reason have I to believe you?

What reason do I have to believe you are not the leader of Israel? Not Ahmedinejad? Not a very lucky chimpanzee?

Then why kick out the IAEA inspectors and move facilities underground?

You'll have to ask them about that. I simply state that they don't say that they want nukes.

What reason do I have to believe you are not the leader of Israel? Not Ahmedinejad? Not a very lucky chimpanzee?

You don't understand, do you? You don't have a reason. I could be any of those things--which is why personal appeals on an internet forum are meaningless banter.

I have already replied to that arguement then either IDF or DMG responded to my reply, then I responded to their response.

Care to respond to answer again? I really don't feel like sifting through 30 pages of posts.

It all comes dpwn to wether you trust me, or you do not. If you think I am lying then fine believe that.

Such as?

Who's to say? All I know is that the more countries with nuclear weapons, the greater the opportunity for them to fall into the hands of those who will use them.

Because if they use nukes there is a good chance they will be attacked. If they sell nukes (Iran gets nukes then hezbollah suddenly has them) there is a reseonable chance they will be attacked. This would directly threaten them/ their regime.

You'll have to ask them about that. I simply state that they don't say that they want nukes.

But it does look highly suspicious when they kicked out the IAEA and moved things underground. If it is for peaceful purposes as they claim it to be, then there is no reason for them to do so.

It all comes dpwn to wether you trust me, or you do not. If you think I am lying then fine believe that.

I think you are telling the truth. What gets me is how people (and not just you, specifically) can transform such a debate as this into a personal issue.

But it does look highly suspicious when they kicked out the IAEA and moved things underground. If it is for peaceful purposes as they claim it to be, then there is no reason for them to do so.

I believe that graven was responding to bodacious's post "If they say they want nukes..."

I think you are telling the truth. What gets me is how people (and not just you, specifically) can transform such a debate as this into a personal issue.

It is personal to me. My family is involved.

Because if they use nukes there is a good chance they will be attacked. If they sell nukes (Iran gets nukes then hezbollah suddenly has them) there is a reseonable chance they will be attacked. This would directly threaten them/ their regime.

Ah yes, but isn't that what Ahmadinejad is there for? To take the fall, after all his rhetoric?

Everyone knows he has no power, and that any decision such as that would have been made by the mullahs.

It is personal to me. My family is involved.

But who are you? Beyond "Slythros," that is.

Neima Iranian-American living in Georgia. Thats all I'm willing to divulge.

Everyone knows he has no power, and that any decision such as that would have been made by the mullahs.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe Iran should acquire nuclear weapons?

Let me ask you this: Do you believe Iran should acquire nuclear weapons?

No. But, as they would never use/sell them it is better than an attack on Iran by Israel.

No. But, as they would never use/sell them it is better than an attack on Iran by Israel.

And how is it better? Why is it that you are willing to let them actually have them in violation of the NPT?

And how is it better? Why is it that you are willing to let them actually have them in violation of the NPT?

I would rather a law be broken and no deaths occur, than the deaths of innocents in accordance with International law.

I don't think anyone ( including the US ) should have nuclear weapons. It makes it to easy for a few people to destroy the entire world if they wished it.

I don't think anyone ( including the US ) should have nuclear weapons. It makes it to easy for a few people to destroy the entire world if they wished it.

Agreed

But it does look highly suspicious when they kicked out the IAEA and moved things underground. If it is for peaceful purposes as they claim it to be, then there is no reason for them to do so.
I believe that Gravlen was responding to bodacious's post "If they say they want nukes..."

Yup.

I would rather a law be broken and no deaths occur, than the deaths of innocents in accordance with International law.

SO you support Iran's attempt to actually violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty? How nice of you. By supporting that, then you have no choice but to support other violations of International Law.

SO you support Iran's attempt to actually violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty? How nice of you. By supporting that, then you have no choice but to support other violations of International Law.

That is not what I said. I said that it is better than innocents dying. I value human life more than law. Don't you? That's a very good strawman you've built there.

Neima Iranian-American living in Georgia. Thats all I'm willing to divulge.

Exactly. And I wouldn't expect you to give anymore information; actually, I was expecting you to take it as a rhetorical question and answer on a philosophical (ahh, what's the word? not philosophical, but close enough) basis. Anyway, yeah, that's exactly it: we maintain our anonymity, therefore raising the issue to a personal level is superfluous.

That's my point; and I apologize if my frankness in any way offended you.

That is not what I said. I said that it is better than innocents dying. I value human life more than law. Don't you? That's a very good strawman you've built there.

Incase you failed reading comp 101, did you even look at what they were planning on doing?

Exactly. And I wouldn't expect you to give anymore information; actually, I was expecting you to take it as a rhetorical question and answer on a philosophical (ahh, what's the word? not philosophical, but close enough) basis. Anyway, yeah, that's exactly it: we maintain our anonymity, therefore raising the issue to a personal level is superfluous.

That's my point; and I apologize if my frankness in any way offended you.

ok.

Incase you failed reading comp 101, did you even look at what they were planning on doing?

fallout? wind? the facilities themselves would provide a lot of fallout. If it doesn't hit the cities, it'll hit the rivers.

I don't think anyone ( including the US ) should have nuclear weapons. It makes it to easy for a few people to destroy the entire world if they wished it.

Eventually, yes. But for now, they are fairly integral in maintaining the status quo in international relations.

fallout? wind? the facilities themselves would provide a lot of fallout. If it doesn't hit the cities, it'll hit the rivers.

Facilities underground Slythros.

No. But, as they would never use/sell them it is better than an attack on Iran by Israel.

If I may clarify: You don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, nor any nation, but if they do manage to obtain them, then it is preferable they are kept as deterrence from a hypothetical attack by Israel. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'll go ahead and continue.

Do you then support efforts to prevent Iran's acquisition of said weapons? Or, alternatively, do you believe that Iran should continue in its present course--that nuclear weapons as a potentiality are to be accepted?

Facilities underground Slythros.

And tunnels lead to the surface. I also assume that bunker-busters will do their job and bust the bunkers.

If I may clarify: You don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, nor any nation, but if they do manage to obtain them, then it is preferable they are kept as deterrence from a hypothetical attack by Israel. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'll go ahead and continue.

Do you then support efforts to prevent Iran's acquisition of said weapons? Or, alternatively, do you believe that Iran should continue in its present course--that nuclear weapons as a potentiality are to be accepted?

I believe that they should not have nuclear weapons, but them acquirung those weapons are preferable to loss of innocent life. I support peaceful international-pressure type efforts to prevent acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.

I believe that they should not have nuclear weapons, but them acquirung those weapons are preferable to loss of innocent life. I support peaceful international-pressure type efforts to prevent acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.

Okay, so it seems that you are firmly set in the belief that when push comes to shove, Iranian nukes would prevent loss of life. And yet this poses a problem; currently, there is only mild indication that Iran is at risk from a nuclear strike. This would be a preemptive strike, if at all. Why should Iran continue this course of action if it is fairly clear that some sort of retaliatory action via Israel is forthcoming? Apparently, the main instigation is Iran's failure to adequately convince the international community that it would not enrich materials to make weapons. Don't get me wrong here, this is not to say that they will make nuclear weapons; rather, this is an indication that the international community has sufficient reason to believe they would. To return to the question, obviously pursuing the current course of action will result in loss of life. Would you justify this at the expense of potentially acquiring a nuclear "deterrent?"

I already said I did not support Iran nukes. This is preferable to the loss of life that would occur in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities to prevent those nukes.

You really don't get it, do you? The US has the Defcon Multi-Deployment Program. Within seconds of reports that Israel used small nukes against Iran without permission a nuke would already be armed and primed and ready to be launched. Britain, though without a Defcon program, would do the exact same. So face it. Your state isn't so god dam impervious and you can't do whatever you want without thinking "Well, we'll be fine because the US is on our side!"

no, just no.

sure we, the brits, the french, the russians, the chinese COULD retaliate for any actions israel might take against iran.

but we wont. no one will. no one wants war. if it can be avoided it will be avoided. there is not automatic nuclear strike against anyone who uses a nuke program.

If Israel were to use the bombs, things would turn pretty ugly.

You see, nuclear bombs are the taboo of today´s society. If you use them, you´ve crossed a line you really shouldnt cross.

Yep, things would turn ugly. Really ugly. AFAIK, Pakistan has nuclear bombs, and they are very close to Israel and Iran. If they were to use their bombs, India could use them too, and then you would have a very nasty conflict.

I already said I did not support Iran nukes. This is preferable to the loss of life that would occur in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities to prevent those nukes.

So you do support nuclear weapons? Yes, you've mentioned that you support them to "prevent loss of life." And yet in obtaining them, Iran would facilitate the very loss of life that having said weapons would prevent. So, do you support the continued course of action Iran is taking even though it would cause a retaliatory (read: preemptive) strike by Israel, and thus "loss of life that would occur in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities to prevent those nukes?"

If Israel were to use the bombs, things would turn pretty ugly.

You see, nuclear bombs are the taboo of today´s society. If you use them, you´ve crossed a line you really shouldnt cross.

Yep, things would turn ugly. Really ugly. AFAIK, Pakistan has nuclear bombs, and they are very close to Israel and Iran. If they were to use their bombs, India could use them too, and then you would have a very nasty conflict.

Yes, which is why Israel will not use nuclear weapons.

Everyone knows he has no power, and that any decision such as that would have been made by the mullahs.

Interesting, a powerless President... :rolleyes:

Does he have any influence on the region at all? Does he have any connections to extremists or any underground elements within the government?

So you do support nuclear weapons? Yes, you've mentioned that you support them to "prevent loss of life." And yet in obtaining them, Iran would facilitate the very loss of life that having said weapons would prevent. So, do you support the continued course of action Iran is taking even though it would cause a retaliatory (read: preemptive) strike by Israel, and thus "loss of life that would occur in the event of an Israeli strike on Iranian facilities to prevent those nukes?"

You are misunderstanding me. I said that I do not support nukes but that Israel preventing them from getting them by missile attack would cause loss of life. please actually read what I write.
I never said that nukes would prevent loss of life but that the Israeli nuclear attack would cause it.

Interesting, a powerless President... :rolleyes:

Does he have any influence on the region at all? Does he have any connections to extremists or any underground elements within the government?

He is completley powerless. The mullahs are in control.

Is everybody ready for what we call in debate: picking out warrants! YEH!

Just for all those non-debaters out there, a warrant is something that makes an argument true. It cannot be one specific example, however multiple examples can be used as warrants. Usually a warrant starts with because, however you won't see a lot of becauses in this post because I have to use empirics.


Of course there are good guys and bad guys in this.

You have no warrant for this. You just straight up go they exist when in fact they do not exist. Both sides have done terrible irrational things that they should not have done. Heck in general life the good/bad dicotomy is a terrible one to take but espiecially in international politics. The US has overthrown peacefully elected democratic governments, the Palestinians have hijacked planes and killed innocent civilians, Israel has retaliated by killing both terrorists and some innocent civilians, Iran openly supports terrorist groups and used a unit called the basiege which was a bunch of 13 yo kids armed with korans against guns to beat Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Nobody is squeaky clean and thus there are no good or bad guys. There are better guys and worse guys.


Israel is aggressive scum and history proves it.

Your warrant is history, so let us find the history you talk about, you mean the history where Israel peacefully bought land from the Palestinians? Hmm that doesn't sound very aggressive does it. Oh wait of course! The Six Day war. Where Israel responded to Arab threats and conquered the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and the Sinai Desert. Hmmm responding to an attack on your country. That also doesn't sound very aggressive. Therefore your history argument is empirically denied.

They impose their immigration and crude state on the locals for over 80 years now and call it righteous because of some idiotic biblical shit.

Well you have no warrant for this either. I would assume though that again your warrant is history. There are two things working against this.

1. Look at my prior post, Israel bought the land peacefully. This would mean no "imposing" of immigration.

2. Then you might also be referring to '48 but again look at my last post, it was mostly Arabs who said they would be able to return so again no imposing of immigration.

So your argument is again empirically denied.

and call it righteous because of some idiotic biblical shit.

1. Israel is a secular state. While more religious then any other western democracy, Israel definitely is nowhere a religious state. So obviously we can't justify the existence of something on the bible if we're not religious.

2. We never call Israel righteous we say that it is justified to exist and justified to defend itself from terror. We never say that all the means that it uses to defend itself from terror are good means or righteous means or even justified means. We merely say Israel can invade the west bank to root out terrorists. This is the same logic that the US used to invade Afghanistan.

Iran would have every right to pursue enrichment for power plants and even nukes. Iran has been threatened ever since it got rid of its US puppet government, and has been attacked by US ally Iraq.

You go too far. I agree let Iran use nuclear power for energy, its much more efficient than any other energy source in the world right now. Now why with their oil reserves Iran can't just use oil is beyond me but if they want to use nuclear power let them. Nukes are a whole nother issue. If you are saying let Iran have nukes then you are justifying anything that they could do with those nukes because the first step to them detonating nukes is allowing them to have nukes. The other thing is that we need to know if we can trust Iran with those nukes and if they are willing to support suicide bombers in the name of Islam then they would probably ignore the concept of MAD and shoot the nukes at Israel. This leads to nuclear war which is bad.

Now to your warrant, Iran threat. Iran has never been threatened by the US. The opposite has happened. Iran kidnapped US embassy agents for no reason so no mystical Iran threat. Then as for the Iraqi invasion the US did not really help either side. They gave Iraq some weapons, then they secretly gave Iran weapons. So it's not like we helped them in any real way. Furthermore calling Saddam Hussein our ally is ridicoulous we kinda just hung him, remember?


And now again the US is making threats and Israel is of course following its big friend and protector.

Two things.

1. No warrant for the US making threats. The US is not making threats besides we will boycott you! Which is reletively small internationally.

2. The US is NOT Israel's protector. They supply Israel with weapons sure but the US also supplies Britain, Ethiopia, Somalia, the UN with weapons. None of them are in the "shadow" of the US (at least to the point where we are their "protector). So why are we Israel's protector? All 6 of Israel's wars they have conducted themselves. They have created their own tanks, machine guns (Uzi!) and other assorted weapons. To say that they are relying on the US is falling into propoganda.


Also it is pretty clear what the ultimate goal of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was (if they had succeeded): to target Iran. Iran has every right and reason to want nukes.

Actually I can see this (OMG a Concession! What?! Those are possible) Iraq and Afghanistan are right next to Iran and would be great launching points for an invasion. However, this does not mean that Iran should have nukes. The US would not use nukes in their supposed invasion of Iran so why should Iran use nukes on the US? The impact you draw is just ludicrous, because South Korea might invade North Korea they should have nukes. Because Nepal is right between India and China they should have nukes, same for Mongolia. Your justification is allowing all these countries to have nukes and that's bad.

This is why I hate these debates on NSG my first post is still winning and now I just added more offence. Yet he probably still won't concede anything.

Yet he probably still won't concede anything.

He'll probably just label you an anti-semite.

Nice post btw :)

It's a really weird feeling to be the most moderate person on my side of the debate.

I support the right of Israel to exist.

This is now being reported on by France24 (here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070107-Israel-Iran.html), with video) and CNN (here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/07/israel.iran.ap/index.html)), but nothing in Al Jazeera, and the BBC seems uninterested, with only a very brief mention (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6238373.stm)).

Oh, and here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html), again, is the original Times article, just so that everyone has access to the original source.

Now why with their oil reserves Iran can't just use oil is beyond me but if they want to use nuclear power let them.

Factoid. Some reports put Iran running into an oil crunch as early as 2030 or even earlier. Developing nuclear power takes time, and it's better to have it ready before it's needed than not having it and not having a steady oil supply.


Iran has never been threatened by the US.


Factoid. This statement is true only by technicality. The US prefers to do damage rather than threatening. A certain US installed dictator in Iran certainly did a lot of harm to the average Iranian.


Then as for the Iraqi invasion the US did not really help either side. They gave Iraq some weapons, then they secretly gave Iran weapons. So it's not like we helped them in any real way.

Factoid. This statement is untrue. Saddam Hussein was provided with material support precisely to keep Iran off balance. Positioning data was given to him to allow for coordinated SCUD launches onto Iranian territory and US supplied chemical weapons were also reputed to have been used.


Furthermore calling Saddam Hussein our ally is ridicoulous we kinda just hung him, remember?

Factoid. Saddam Hussein was an US ally until he invaded Kuwait on what appears to have been deliberate misleading.

Or are you saying this photo is fake?

http://www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg


2. The US is NOT Israel's protector. To say that they are relying on the US is falling into propoganda.

Factoid. This statement is false. US has without fail vetoed every single resolution against Israel. The US does protect Israel. Just not in the limited context you're applying.


This is why I hate these debates on NSG my first post is still winning and now I just added more offence.

Your added offense is full of holes. Also, please use spellcheck for future posts.

Factoid. Some reports put Iran running into an oil crunch as early as 2030 or even earlier. Developing nuclear power takes time, and it's better to have it ready before it's needed than not having it and not having a steady oil supply.




Factoid. This statement is true only by technicality. The US prefers to do damage rather than threatening. A certain US installed dictator in Iran certainly did a lot of harm to the average Iranian.

Exactly, I assume you are reffering to the shah as the dictator and the ousting of Mossadegh. completley true.



Factoid. This statement is untrue. Saddam Hussein was provided with material support precisely to keep Iran off balance. Positioning data was given to him to allow for coordinated SCUD launches onto Iranian territory and US supplied chemical weapons were also reputed to have been used.

Also true. Us chemical weapons were launched by saddam at U.S coordinates of Iranian troops and rivers (supplying water to civilians)

Factoid. Saddam Hussein was an US ally until he invaded Kuwait on what appears to have been deliberate misleading.

Or are you saying this photo is fake?

http://www.bartcop.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg



Factoid. This statement is false. US has without fail vetoed every single resolution against Israel. The US does protect Israel. Just not in the limited context you're applying.



Your added offense is full of holes. Also, please use spellcheck for future posts.

Also it is pretty clear what the ultimate goal of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was (if they had succeeded): to target Iran. Iran has every right and reason to want nukes.

Nonsense. The Iraq and Afg invasions were the best things to have happened to Iran. They were constrained by the hostile regimes of taliban in Afg and Saddam in Iraq. Both are now gone and they are reverting to the natural influence of Iran over them. Iran wields good influence over the NA regime through the significant farsi speaking Irano-philes of western Afg and likewise in Iraq with the shia population. They have gotten the strategic space they never had and never even hoped for.

Also true. Us chemical weapons were launched by saddam at U.S coordinates of Iranian troops and rivers (supplying water to civilians)

Actually that is not 100% true.

so chemical weapons that were 87% U.S were launched with 60% U.s Corrdinates at things that were only 40% rivers? kindly elaborate

so chemical weapons that were 87% U.S were launched with 60% U.s Corrdinates at things that were only 40% rivers? kindly elaborate

first off, prove that 87% of the chem weapons used were from the United States when other nations supplied far more chemicals than we did!

second, prove that we actually coordinated 60% at things that were ony 40%rivers.