Quote :

"Why not just leave it alone, let the UN do what it is supposedly there to do, and not worry about it?"

ahahahahahaha the UN, good one!

10/30/2009 10:47:47 AM

Anything's better than Obama's strategy of sending Ahmadinnerjacket flowers.

10/30/2009 11:00:53 AM

Quote :

"ahahahahahaha the UN, good one!"

If they don't do anything, they don't do anything. I really don't care, as long as we're not the ones spending money and invading countries.

Quote :

"Anything's better than Obama's strategy of sending Ahmadinnerjacket flowers."

Really? Anything would be better? Why, exactly, do we need a strategy? Why can't we just not deal with it? We're in no danger. Iran isn't going to nuke someone, because they know the consequences.

10/30/2009 12:14:52 PM

Quote :

"What we should do is not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons"

How?

Quote :

"Why not just leave it alone, let the UN "

Stop. The UN is corrupt, incompetent, and generally worthless.

10/30/2009 1:33:00 PM

I don't support the UN or support our participation in it. My only point with that is that, supposedly, their purpose is to deal with crap like this. I don't think we should deal with it.

10/30/2009 1:43:33 PM

As has been said before, a nuclear armed Iran significantly raises the risk of a nuclear armed Hezbollah and/or Hamas. This is untenable.

10/30/2009 2:02:17 PM

and so we should..........

10/30/2009 2:07:46 PM

Quote :

"give them a time to comply that if not met, we commence the world's largest aerial bombardment. Everything short of nukes gets used. We make the entire country look like Dresden when it's over."

10/30/2009 2:40:49 PM

Some of you obviously can't read very well--I have made my position and my plan abundantly clear here. But you don't care what it is--you just want to swoop in and tell me how wrong it is:

Quote :

"1. We should engage in limited negotiations (meaning not dick around for years or even months, giving Iran even more time to develop their bomb). If nothing else, this will provide us with cover when we do what must be done. 2. We should immediately and fully recognize that Iran will do neither A nor B in your probability statement [A) Iran opens its doors, declares facilities, adopts safeguards; B) Iran halts all enrichment]. 3. We should allow Israel to do what is necessary--by any means necessary--to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And we should be willing to back them to the hilt if necessary. The real question is what is Obama going to do about this situation? This is what he has said: Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power Jul 02, 2009 http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power/ We'll see if it's just talk."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=576740&page=2

Quote :

"I would achieve this by any means necessary."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=576740&page=1

Quote :

""

message_topic.aspx?topic=576740&page=3

[Edited on October 30, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : If you ask what I would do anymore, I won't answer--you're just trolling.]

10/30/2009 3:35:45 PM

Iran really knows how to "negotiate" in good faith.

Israel says seized ship contained Iranian arms
November 5, 2009

Quote :

"JERUSALEM -- The Israeli navy said Wednesday that commandos had seized a container ship carrying a huge cache of weapons that originated in Iran and was ultimately destined for the militia of the Islamist Hezbollah movement. As part of its routine inspection of ships in the Mediterranean Sea, the Israeli navy intercepted the vessel Tuesday night near Cyprus, roughly 100 miles off the Israeli coast. There was no resistance from the ship's crew, and once Israeli special forces boarded, they found an estimated 600 tons of rockets, guns and other munitions, said Rear Adm. Rani Ben-Yehuda, deputy head of the Israeli navy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110404296.html

Iran's Leader Faults U.S. 'Arrogance' in Nuclear Talks
November 3, 2009

Quote :

"BEIRUT, Lebanon — Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lashed out at the United States in a speech on Tuesday, criticizing what he called an arrogant American attitude toward nuclear talks and saying the Obama administration had not followed through on its promises of change."

Quote :

"'The Islamic republic of Iran decided from the beginning not to prejudge and instead to consider the slogan of 'change,'" said Ayatollah Khamenei in remarks to a group of students and teachers that were broadcast by the state-run Press TV. "But what we have witnessed in practice during this period of time has been in contradiction with the remarks that have been made.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html

Iran's Khamenei rejects U.S. outreach
OBAMA EFFORTS DISDAINED
Ayatollah says talks would be 'perverted'
November 4, 2009

Quote :

"TEHRAN -- Iran's supreme leader, spurning what he described as several personal overtures from President Obama, warned Tuesday that negotiating with the United States would be 'naive and perverted' and that Iranian politicians should not be 'deceived"' into starting such talks."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110301397.html

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2009 5:56:43 AM

PS:

You do realize that Iran celebrates--sort of like a holiday--the takeover of our embassy, right?

President Obama marks Iranian hostage crisis anniversary
11/5/09

Quote :

"President Barack Obama released a statement late Tuesday marking the anniversary of the hostage crisis in Iran and declaring once again that 'Iran must choose' whether to join a more open community of nations. The statement came as thousands took to the streets in Tehran on Wednesday to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy there."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29160.html

11/5/2009 6:23:57 AM

1) The US sends the latest arms to Israel on the regular, so I don't see what's wrong with Iran sending arms to any group or nation trying to fend itself from Israel.

2) I also don't see what's wrong with Iran celebrating the takeover of the US Embassy. The US overthrew an elected leader and installed a brutal dictator who terrorized the Iranian civilians for decades. No one knows how many died or disappeared due to his brutal intelligence and police agencies. The revolution removed the US-installed dictator, and the takeover was part of the revolution. I see nothing wrong with celebrating it.

11/5/2009 7:24:37 AM

^ You don't see anything wrong because you're a fucking stooge.

1. The Obama administration lists Hezbollah--the group that was set to receive the shipload of weapons from Iran--as a terrorist organization (updated July 7, 2009):

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

2. Had those Iranian Islamists in question simply deported our embassy officials 30 years ago, it would be a different story. But they forcibly took hostages and held them in abusive conditions for 400-plus days. Furthermore, U.S. soldiers died trying to rescue those hostages.

3. And Obama disagrees with your position:

Quote :

"In his statement, Obama said the embassy sacking 'helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust and confrontation.' But he offered to improve relations, if Iran also was willing. 'We have heard for 30 years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for,' Obama said. 'It is time for the Iranian government to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity and justice for its people.'"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29160.html

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 8:04 AM. Reason : I won't address you further--you're too stupid.]

11/5/2009 8:04:12 AM

You are too fucking deep in the pockets of Zionists and the neocons, so you are a stupid stooge too. And a fucking chickenhawk wannabe war criminal. You want to rain down missiles on another country and kill a few thousands (or hundreds of thousands) more civilians.

Quote :

"Obama said the embassy sacking 'helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust and confrontation.' "

Yeah, but the decades of brutalization [BEFORE the Embassy takeover] of the Iranian people by the thugs of the US-installed dictator... did what? Set the US and Iran on a path of trust, love, and hugs?

And what about the US blowing up an Iranian airliner and killing 280 people? The US refuses to even apologize for it, let alone offer billions in compensation as the US extracted out of Gaddafi. I am sure blowing up an airplane full of people AND THE REFUSING TO EVEN SAY 'SORRY' also helped set the 2 countries on a path of trust and love, right?

11/5/2009 8:20:14 AM

Quote :

"The statement came as thousands took to the streets in Tehran on Wednesday to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy there.""

Some did celebrate the takeover, others were protesting their own government

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/04/iran.hostage.protests/index.html

Quote :

"Thousands of protesters ignored warnings from Iranian authorities to stay home, many chanting "Death to the Dictator" and others saying, "Obama - Either you're with us or with them," referring to the U.S. president. "

The winds of change?

I too am pissed that Iran is being stubborn on this process, I thought the diplomatic offer to ship enriched uranium to them from russia and france was a pretty good and fair solution. I've read a quote before from El Baredei (sp?) that basically said the Iranian government was notorious for trying to position themselves to get more and more out of deals like these. With waning support at home, I think their sabre rattling is being recognized as not good for IRan. Im still willing to wait and see for a while before dropping any bombs.

11/5/2009 9:13:49 AM

No, I think we should go ahead and start farming mushrooms.

11/5/2009 9:44:44 AM

How is it anything other than arrogance when a country that has thousands of nukes and has used them and has randomly invaded other countries gets hell bent out of shape over anyone else making one nuke?

The whole MV Francorp deal was likely an Israeli plant and propaganda mission to avoid peace and bring us closer to another war. Even if it was real, just because guns are on a ship coming from iran, doesn't mean the iranian government was behind it or even ok with it.

Quote :

"I recommend we give them a time to comply that if not met, we commence the world's largest aerial bombardment. Everything short of nukes gets used. We make the entire country look like Dresden when it's over."

This is just a childish response but its sad because there are LOTS of American's that think this way. They have no value for life...well no value for non-american life. Killing 10, 50, or a hundred innocent people doesn't phase them at all.

Quote :

"Why do you people care so much? How do you think we can pay for another war? Why not just leave it alone, let the UN do what it is supposedly there to do, and not worry about it? We can't launch these hugely expensive military operations anymore. We're broke. You have to admit that, even if you don't understand the (obvious) moral implications of launching another aggressive war."

we're america. we have to show them whose boss! we can't stay broke either because we're america. we can just print more money! we have to protect israel by all means because they are God's people in the bible!

Quote :

"Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power Jul 02, 2009 http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/07/02/obama-iran-cannot-be-permitted-to-be-nuke-power/ We'll see if it's just talk.""

the definition of obama is "just talk"

11/6/2009 8:53:39 PM

Here we go again.

Iran accuses 3 detained Americans of espionage
(AP) – 3 hours ago

Quote :

"TEHRAN, Iran — A senior Iranian prosecutor accused three Americans detained on the border with Iraq of espionage on Monday, the first signal that Tehran intends to put them on trial. The move could set up the Americans — who relatives say were hiking and strayed across the border from Iraq — as potential bargaining chips in Iran's standoff with the West. The announcement came as Washington and Tehran were maneuvering over a deadlock in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alleged the three crossed Iran's border illegally, saying this was something any country would punish. 'In all countries, crossing borders would have a very heavy sentence, according to the law,' he told a news conference in Istanbul before the start of a summit of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference. 'Unfortunately, they crossed our borders illegally. We are not happy about that, but there is a law.'"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUarMRGfLCax53RhHap9iLIi11hAD9BS5KQ00

I'm so sick of these fuckheads.

11/9/2009 4:16:49 PM

It'd be really great if we had the moral high ground here, for situations like this.

11/9/2009 4:19:04 PM

^ But we had "Change." I thought the bad people were supposed to be nice to us now.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : And it's really "high ground" for Iran to use humans as "bargaining chips." GG. ]

11/9/2009 4:29:58 PM

The US/Israel/et al don't use humans as bargaining chips? Hmmmery

11/9/2009 4:39:27 PM

^ Tu quoque much, Captain Logic?

11/9/2009 4:41:31 PM

You have a consistent ability to fail to track the issue under discussion/consideration

I said it'd be great if we had the moral high ground here. We don't, because we do practically the same shit. You call this Tu quoque. ...

11/9/2009 4:42:34 PM

^ You are stupid.

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.



[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : Oh, and PWNT--again. ]

11/9/2009 4:45:09 PM

except that he was talking about how it would be nice to have the moral high ground, the moral high ground was given away because of "P". he is not dismissing anything, he is not saying that its an excuse for anything.

jesus christ you are retarded

11/9/2009 4:49:44 PM

^ lol

11/9/2009 4:50:09 PM

Quote :

"The move could set up the Americans — who relatives say were hiking and strayed across the border from Iraq — as potential bargaining chips in Iran's standoff with the West."

Quote :

"The US/Israel/et al don't use humans as bargaining chips?"

This is clearly a tu quoque logical fallacy and you idiots can cackle all you want--the "moral high ground" argument be damned. And you know this--it's why you clowns are rushing to McDouches's defense.

MAN DOWN!!!1

11/9/2009 4:55:33 PM

Haha you are mentally retarded

Done with your degree yet? Any prospects beyond TWW yet?

11/9/2009 4:57:36 PM

let me try to boil it down some more. yes, hooksaw, in debates it is inappropriate to dismiss something by pointing out that someone else did it too. however, pointing out that it would be nice if that person never did the thing so they wouldn't need to be worried about being labeled a hypocrite is not only not a fallacy, it's a completely commonsensical observation.

11/9/2009 4:59:40 PM

^^ What are your bona fides? Establish them or I'll treat you as a false authority.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 4:59:51 PM

are you asking him so you can reply with OMG APPEAL TO AUTORITY!!!111?

11/9/2009 5:01:37 PM

^ Incorrect. McDouche incessantly makes the claim, directly and indirectly, that he is an authority in certain areas--I require proof. I mean, he's so smart--it should be easy.

11/9/2009 5:06:13 PM

you mean like when you remind people that you have taken grad school courses on a subject?

11/9/2009 5:07:16 PM

^ Oh, so he took a course?

11/9/2009 5:09:59 PM

a course on not being an obtuse retard? i think he placed out of that one.

11/9/2009 5:14:16 PM

Quote :

"a course on not being an obtuse retard? i think he placed out of that one."

rofl

@hook What course did I have to take to reason properly? Should I refer you to mathematics, logic, or philosophy courses?

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 5:15:45 PM

^^ But you didn't, right? Is that why you're carrying his water? Does he need a spokesperson?

STFU.

^ List your qualifications.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 5:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 5:16:16 PM

It depends on what you consider qualifications

Let me know what you consider the appropriate domain

11/9/2009 5:17:42 PM

Quote :

"The move could set up the Americans"

"could"/="have indicated they will"


person A attempts to rape person B's daughter
person B pulls out his shotgun
person A criticizes person B for having the odacity to resort to savage guns as a bargaining chip against the rape of his daughter

11/9/2009 8:43:11 PM

Now that Turkey is involved with these discussions, I'm a lot more confident that something will be worked out that Iran will agree to. Hopefully.

11/10/2009 12:53:50 AM

Anyway, before the thread got bogged down in far-left moonbat diarrhea, this was the point:

Iran accuses 3 detained Americans of espionage (AP)

http://tinyurl.com/yfq4rfs

How is this helpful to negotiations?

Furthermore, I would like to get some of you on record: How long should the United States wait--and continue "discussions"--before determining that talks with Iran are not producing results and then initiating (1) harsh sanctions or (2) some form of direct or indirect military action or (3) both?

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 8:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2009 7:43:35 AM

About the length of time it takes an ICBM to get there.

11/10/2009 8:23:29 AM

Quote :

"About the length of time it takes an ICBM to get there."

har har

11/10/2009 8:25:00 AM

Quote :

"Furthermore, I would like to get some of you on record: How long should the United States wait--and continue "discussions"--before determining that talks with Iran are not producing results and then initiating (1) harsh sanctions"

Sanctions don't work. Who do you think gets punished by sanctioning Iran? Ahmadinejad is going to be living high on the hog either way. The people that will suffer are the Iranian citizens, and the leadership is willing to sacrifice their citizens in order to achieve their agenda. If you think Iran is going to stop making nukes because of sanctions, you're crazy.

Quote :

"(2) some form of direct or indirect military action"

No, that isn't a good idea. I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate for us to invade or bomb Iran, short of them straight up saying "we're about to nuke you." That isn't going to happen. Iran having nukes isn't a good thing, but that doesn't make it okay to invade them. We should mind our own business.

So, we should continue talks, unless it becomes clear that they don't want to talk. In that case, we should just stop talking to them, and do nothing. It doesn't always have to be "diplomacy OR start another war."

11/10/2009 8:36:13 AM

^ wow, someone who doesn't have a thirst for blood of a-rabs and can think logically and is not in the pockets of zionists

11/10/2009 8:41:48 AM

1000 Arabs < 1 American.

11/10/2009 9:00:23 AM

Some of you are so stupid that it's disturbing.

"Harsh" sanctions are the preferred option being pushed by the Obama administration and the Democrat-led Congress and even our allies:

Iran Nuclear Talks Could Fail in Final Week
November 09, 2009

Quote :

"In Tehran and Washington, expectations are dim for a deal on the IAEA nuclear proposal that would have Iran export its low-enriched uranium for processing, easing global fears over its nuclear program. US officials have suggested there is just one week left for Iran to respond before a hard push for new international sanctions; in the past few weeks both the US House and Senate have passed legislation toward unilateral sanctions that would punish foreign companies that sell refined gasoline to Iran."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/iran-nuclear-talks-could-fail-in-final-week-.html

And I guess the Obama administration, Britain, and France also have a "thirst for blood":

Clinton says no options off table with Iran
Tue Jan 13, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSWBT010394

Brown on Iran: We're drawing a line in the sand
September 25, 2009

http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/2009/09/25/Brown-on-Iran-Were-drawing-a/1253886737.html

STFU.

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 9:06 AM. Reason : And doing "nothing" is supremely stupid and is not an option at all. ]

11/10/2009 9:05:40 AM

I couldn't disagree more. But, even if I accepted that (^^), you're arguing my point for me. If American lives truly are more valuable, why do you want to send more soldiers to their deaths? Iran isn't going to do anything harmful to us.

So, what you're really arguing is that 1000 Arabs < 1 Israeli, because Israel is the only country really in any (potential) danger. The thing is, they're capable of defending themselves.

Quote :

""Harsh" sanctions are the preferred option being pushed by the Obama administration and the Democrat-led Congress and even our allies:"

Uh, just because Obama and the Democrats support something doesn't make it a good idea. I explained why sanctions haven't worked, and won't work. I suggest reading that explanation again. Other than that, you're just linking other people's opinions on what we should do about Iran. The people that support sanctions or military action against Iran are wrong.

Quote :

"And doing "nothing" is supremely stupid and is not an option at all."

Why is it stupid? Is it really so stupid to think that we should have just reasons for going to war? Do you just not care about the money it takes to wage a war, and the innocent people that have to die in the process?

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 9:17 AM. Reason : ]

11/10/2009 9:08:00 AM

Quote :

"1000 Arabs < 1 American."

What if the American is an Arab how does the calculus work out then

Quote :

"And I guess the Obama administration, Britain, and France also have a "thirst for blood""

better believe it

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2009 9:09:43 AM

11/10/2009 9:13:57 AM