^I don't watch bad comedy, stooge.

also its doofus not doodfus. You really are a moron

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2009 11:13:20 AM

^ Great comeback, doofus.

Do you have anything to offer on the topic other than anti-Israel bullshit?

12/10/2009 11:21:28 AM

Pwnt by that Silverman jew.

12/10/2009 11:29:54 AM

Do you understand that there's a clear difference between being anti-Israel and being against dumping billions of dollars into Israel while also sacrificing American lives to "protect" them? If it were any other country that we were doing this for, I would be equally opposed to it. The fact that we have Israel's back makes it so they have absolutely no incentive to make peace. They are just as arrogant and aggressive as we are because they know that if SHTF, we'll come in and bomb someone. Maybe if there wasn't that protection, they'd actually put in an honest effort to make peace.

12/10/2009 11:32:32 AM

We didn't come in and bomb anyone in the 6 day war. Or in any of the other times that all the arab nations AT ONCE attacked Israel. Israel can and does fend for itself. We'll sell weapons to any government whose policies and attitudes fit in with ours.

FFS, Jordan flies F16's too.

12/10/2009 11:34:43 AM

^^ I was simply responding to this post:

Quote :

"Lol. I like Jews. Just not the nation of Israel."

Golovkommie

12/10/2009 11:40:57 AM

Quote :

"^ Great comeback, doofus. Do you have anything to offer on the topic other than anti-Israel bullshit?"

Do you, other than more 'kill everyone in the world but us' bullshit??

Also, you don't mind correcting everyone else's posts but then your panties get in a wad when someone corrects you...awesome.

Quote :

"Pwnt by that Silverman jew."

lol you're like the annoying little commentator that everyone mutes because he's got nothing of value to say. *mute*

Quote :

"l^^ I was simply responding to this post:"

Did you have a point? Israel is an agressor in the region...so naturally anyone who is for peace and stability isn't going to support them. So I can completely understand why you do support them because you're all for nuking everyone over there to hell except for Israel.

Quote :

"Golovkommie"

I'm not sure if you're trying to say I'm a commie now or if you just suck at spelling since i've seen evidence of that ITT already.

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2009 11:43:50 AM

^ That is a gross mischaracterization of my position on Iran and in general--and if you'd bother to read the thread, you'd know this. But it's no surprise coming from you.

From page 6:

Quote :

"We should always pursue diplomacy to its utmost. But when the hostile party in question, Iran, clearly has no intention of engaging in serious diplomacy--and has every intention of pursuing and possibly even using a weapon of mass destruction--we must stop this by any means necessary."

Quote :

"The people of Iran should initiate any regime change. And I wish they would do it sooner rather than later--perhaps any escalation could then be avoided. I do not wish for war--I wish for peace. But peace does not simply mean the absence of conflict; it means the presence of justice."

hooksaw

12/10/2009 11:50:52 AM

Quote :

"^ That is a gross mischaracterization of my position on Iran and in general--and if you'd bother to read the thread, you'd know this. But it's no surprise coming from you."

Pot Kettle.

12/10/2009 11:52:15 AM

Obvious troll.

12/10/2009 11:53:04 AM

Again, Pot Kettle.

12/10/2009 11:55:53 AM

Quote :

"Lol. I like Jews. Just not the nation of Israel."

Come on man... we are on the same side of the fence here... DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

(my post calling you an anti-semite was a tongue in cheek comment... you know, anybody who criticizes Israel's barbaric actions and policies is an "anti-semite" according to the pro-Israeli/aggression/oppression neocon chickenhawks)


[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2009 11:58:03 AM

^haha...no i know how you meant it. I was just beating hooksaw to the punch because we all know how he is.

12/10/2009 11:59:33 AM

Docs indicates Iran studying key nuke part
Dec. 14, 2009

Quote :

"TEHRAN, Dec. 14 (UPI) -- Iran at best is studying a key component of a nuclear bomb and at worst is working to test one, secret documents obtained by The Times of London indicate. The information describes a multi-year plan to test a neutron initiator, which triggers the explosion of a nuclear bomb, the newspaper reported Monday. Foreign intelligence dates the documents to 2007, four years after Iran was believed to have suspended its nuclear weapons program. The document describes the use of a neutron source that independent experts confirmed for The Times has no civilian or military purpose other than part of a nuclear weapon."

http://tinyurl.com/ychrrs2

Aaand they'll hold a show trial for shits and giggles:

Iran to try three U.S. hikers as spies
Dec. 14, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/y9trhfg

Now witness the flapping, foaming far-left moonbats attempt to defend this somehow.

SO WHAT?!!1

12/14/2009 11:31:16 AM

it's obvious they want nukes. i'm actually a proponent for them getting nukes. that way israel has a reason to pre-empt and eliminate them for us and we'll just be backup in terms of involvement over there.

12/14/2009 11:32:29 AM

Quote :

"it's obvious they want nukes. i'm actually a proponent for them getting nukes. that way israel has a reason to pre-empt and eliminate them for us and we'll just be backup in terms of involvement over there. play nice with its neighbors and join the international community as a civilized state."

Quote :

"Iran to try three U.S. hikers as spies Dec. 14, 2009"

You know, if only the U.S. was so strict with people wondering over its borders, my grass probably wouldn't be cut ever. So I guess I see your point at how ridiculous this trial is!

[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2009 12:21:59 PM

^ Right on cue.

12/14/2009 12:25:28 PM

^bat shit crazy.

12/14/2009 12:31:31 PM

^ Please stop trolling this thread. Do you deny the accuracy of these news reports? Yes or no?

Docs indicates Iran studying key nuke part
Dec. 14, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/ychrrs2

Iran to try three U.S. hikers as spies
Dec. 14, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/y9trhfg

12/14/2009 12:56:01 PM

iran must be letting its black september funding get low, b/c i haven't seen any major trouble in gaza or tel aviv for a while.

they need to step it up again before they lose their chance. obama is gonna root em up forcefully.


i honestly can't wait till iran has a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons. we'll finally get to use our missile sheild for somebody. (if we still have it)

12/14/2009 1:01:57 PM

Iran Test-Fires Its Most Advanced Missile
December 16, 2009

Quote :

"CAIRO — Iran announced Wednesday that it had test-fired an improved version of its most advanced missile capable of reaching Israel and parts of Europe, in a move that appeared aimed to discourage a military attack on its nuclear sites and to defy Western pressure over its nuclear program. The announcement provoked immediate rebukes from the White House and leaders in Europe, and appeared likely to intensify pressure from the United States and other Western powers to impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran. A White House spokesman told Reuters that the test undermined Iran's claims that its nuclear program is peaceful, and said it would 'increase the seriousness and resolve of the international community to hold Iran accountable' for its provocations. The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, said the missile test 'does make the case for us moving further on sanctions,' according to the Associated Press."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/middleeast/17iran.html

I'm sure that advanced missile is for peaceful purposes.

12/16/2009 2:05:35 PM

I'm sure all the nations with much more advanced missiles "cough" Israelus "cough" have them for "peaceful purposes"

12/16/2009 2:10:42 PM

I trust some nations a lot more with advanced weapons, capable of killing millions a lot more than I trust others.

By others I mean nations who declare offensive, malicious intent once they acquire said weapons.

If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon it will no doubt result in an international catastrophe.

12/16/2009 3:08:02 PM

I wouldn't trust mambagrl with a packet of pop rocks.

12/16/2009 4:11:45 PM

I'd call this fairly malicious:

Quote :

"Death to Israel!"

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

12/16/2009 4:47:07 PM

Great job on context/literal translation . The state of Israel should be abolished as it was created fraudulently. That doesn't mean bloodshed or even returning land to its rightful owners, it just means political rearangement and government reform.

12/16/2009 5:56:11 PM

^^Normally I'd point out how the phrase "death to [whatever]" in that culture does not literally mean they want to kill every single person that is a part of [whatever]...

But being that your quote is from Ahmadinejad... he'd probably be pretty happy if every Israeli were dead. And though he strikes me as intelligent enough to know just how much hell would rain down upon him if he ever actually attacked Israel, I still wouldn't put it past him.

12/16/2009 6:16:26 PM

^ My thoughts exactly. And if you take the remark at issue in context with many others, it becomes even more apparent.

12/16/2009 6:22:45 PM

At this point, I honestly think that Ahmedinejad WANTS the west to attack him... whether it's NATO, UN coalition soldiers, Britain, us, or whoever, it seems like he's deliberately trying to provoke a hostile response... a sort of trolling on the stage of international diplomacy. Between the holocaust denial, threats to Israel, obvious rigged elections, violent quelling of protests that followed the elections, disregard for sanctions on nuclear development, further threats to Israel, etc... It's just so incredibly blatant that it all seems prepared and designed.


What I can't figure out is why he is trying to get someone to attack him... Is he much smarter than he lets on, and has some completely hidden ace up his sleeve that no one else knows about? Is he even dumber than he acts, and doesn't really believe he'd be out of power within days (if not hours) of a western attack? Is he more selfless than he seems, and wants to become a political martyr to further increase anti-American/anti-western sentiment in the middle east? Or is he a batshit crazy despot, who is just seeing how much he can piss everyone else off, just for kicks?

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 2:38 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 2:37:24 AM

^either that or he's just trolling the US with the ole 'hey look, I too can act like a total bully, disregard the international community and do whatever I want, and no one will or can say shit about it'

*shrug* worked so well for Bush, why not him?

12/17/2009 3:01:16 AM

^That basically falls under the last option I mentioned... only instead of "batshit crazy despot", it's more "smart enough to realize exactly where the line is and not quite cross it". Still, though, playing a game like that in international politics is pretty batshit crazy when one considers the possible consequences.


As for Bush, I think he genuinely did not really care what the rest of the world thought of the US (just as many hard-line Republicans nowdays seem to see disregard for international opinion as a virtue, for some strange reason). Ahmedinejad does seem to care what the world thinks, even if it's just to see how much he's annoying them. So, really, it's not all that apt a comparison.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 3:10 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 3:03:34 AM

Ahmadinnerjacket doesn't take a dump without the direction of Khamenei. So, yeah I think he's dumb. But it doesn't matter if he's dumb, since his strings are in the hands of someone else.

The entire regime from the very top to the lowest of the Basij are bat-shit crazy.

12/17/2009 8:33:54 AM

Quote :

"What I can't figure out is why he is trying to get someone to attack him... Is he much smarter than he lets on, and has some completely hidden ace up his sleeve that no one else knows about? Is he even dumber than he acts, and doesn't really believe he'd be out of power within days (if not hours) of a western attack?"

I'm pretty sure he's just trying to exploit how hypocritical and opressive we are. If he wanted to give us reason to attack, he would simply strike first. He knows that as long as he doesn't do anything hostile, hes the victim and will continue to gain support and build disdain for the U.S.

are you dumb enough to believe we have the means to invade iran in days? we have no troops. Only like 20k of our troops are undeployed. It would likely take 2-300k to invade iran and honestly, I doubt we would suceed considering the number of people and vast number of fighters, weapons that have given us problems in afghanistan and iraq, and the will of our people to fight another completely pointless war.

The entire region would turn against the west for attacking a nation without provocation causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

China's not going to let this whole thing go over well either. Who knows what russia will do.

A war with Iran would be Iraq times 10. It would almost certainly destroy our economy, image and maybe even lead to the end of the U.S. as a nation all together. Its a good thing the war-mongering republicans aren't in control.

12/17/2009 9:43:57 AM

Quote :

"What I can't figure out is why he is trying to get someone to attack him... Is he much smarter than he lets on, and has some completely hidden ace up his sleeve that no one else knows about? Is he even dumber than he acts, and doesn't really believe he'd be out of power within days (if not hours) of a western attack? Is he more selfless than he seems, and wants to become a political martyr to further increase anti-American/anti-western sentiment in the middle east? Or is he a batshit crazy despot, who is just seeing how much he can piss everyone else off, just for kicks? "

I think a part of his rhetoric has to be based in the general unrest of his country's people. Guys like him dont deal well with public outrage. They need an enemy to consolidate their power a la 1984. If the west attacks him, in any fashion, it would likely solidify his place at the top for years to come.

Quote :

"As for Bush, I think he genuinely did not really care what the rest of the world thought of the US (just as many hard-line Republicans nowdays seem to see disregard for international opinion as a virtue, for some strange reason)."

This really isnt fair. I think you would be hard pressed to find a significant number of people who "dont care" about what the world thinks of US. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that there is a great number who care, however, understand that everyone has an agenda out there and if we believe strongly enough in something we will give you the finger and move forward.

12/17/2009 9:47:54 AM

Quote :

"and will continue to gain support"

gain support from whom oh wise one?

12/17/2009 9:49:03 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure he's just trying to exploit how hypocritical and opressive we are. If he wanted to give us reason to attack, he would simply strike first. He knows that as long as he doesn't do anything hostile, hes the victim and will continue to gain support and build disdain for the U.S. are you dumb enough to believe we have the means to invade iran in days? we have no troops. Only like 20k of our troops are undeployed. It would likely take 2-300k to invade iran and honestly, I doubt we would suceed considering the number of people and vast number of fighters, weapons that have given us problems in afghanistan and iraq, and the will of our people to fight another completely pointless war. The entire region would turn against the west for attacking a nation without provocation causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. China's not going to let this whole thing go over well either. Who knows what russia will do. A war with Iran would be Iraq times 10. It would almost certainly destroy our economy, image and maybe even lead to the end of the U.S. as a nation all together. Its a good thing the war-mongering republicans aren't in control."

are you serious? did you just call the US oppressive and defend Iran in the same breathe? you get sillier by the day.

your numbers a way off too. it would be one thing if you had valid statistics to support your ridiculousness.

I dont think any one person wants to go to war in Iran. I agree China and Russia would be very upset. I also agree that Americans probably do not have the stomach to do so after 8 years. It would be very costly in both $texas and blood. what the "war-mongerers" have to consider is the future cost of blood if these crazy assholes obtain a nuclear weapon. surely, you are not so dumb as that you dont grasp this reality. additionally, if we decide to strike, it wont be to topple a government...it will be to destroy specific facilities. a ground invasion is not necessary to keep the bomb out of their reach. we can do a lot of damage from the air.

12/17/2009 9:55:36 AM

Quote :

"what the "war-mongerers" have to consider is the future cost of blood if these crazy assholes obtain a nuclear weapon. surely, you are not so dumb as that you dont grasp this reality"

They are only labeled as such because the crazy war-mongerers labeled them as such. The irony is that these very same people have spilt more blood and caused more unrest in the region then Iran.

12/17/2009 10:27:08 AM

really?

the iran-iraq conflict doesnt count right?

would you feel the world is safer with an Iranian atomic weapon?

12/17/2009 11:00:14 AM

^the US was just as involved in that...or did you forget?

also how long ago was that conflict? yeah thats what i thought...

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 11:30:46 AM

Well then quit bitching about Israel. It's been there since 1948, get over it.

12/17/2009 11:47:18 AM

Quote :

"Well then quit bitching about Israel. It's been there since 1948, get over it."

lol...is that an attempt at trolling or are you just that dumb?

I'm not bitching that Israel exists, dumbass. Its their government's agression and foreign policy (if you can even call it that) thats the issue.

but I'm going to go with you're just trolling.

12/17/2009 11:59:18 AM

Quote :

"^the US was just as involved in that...or did you forget? also how long ago was that conflict? yeah thats what i thought..."

yeah dog. same thing.

I also notice you conveniently didnt answer my other question.

12/17/2009 1:26:25 PM

^are you joking?

Quote :

"would you feel the world is safer with an Iranian atomic weapon?"

The world is never safer with the presence of atomic weapons in anyones hands...especially the United States since they're the only ones in history to use them. More specifically on civilian populations.

On that note...the world is also not in any more danger by the Iranians having atomic weapons than it is with them not having them.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 1:34:34 PM

Quote :

"The world is never safer with the presence of atomic weapons in anyones hands...especially the United States since they're the only ones in history to use them. More specifically on civilian populations. On that note...the world is also not in any more danger by the Iranians having atomic weapons than it is with them not having them."

you just completely contradicted yourself. on one hand, the world is less safe with more atomic weapons and on the other its not? you cant have it both ways.

do you really want to get into the usage of atomic weapons in WW2? I like how you try to derail the topic in the face of your ridiculousness. classic. whats next...am I racist too?

12/17/2009 1:43:37 PM

Quote :

"you just completely contradicted yourself. on one hand, the world is less safe with more atomic weapons and on the other its not? you cant have it both ways. "

actually, no...you made the contradiction by not comprehending. I didn't say the word 'more' any where in my sentence. I just said the existence/presence of atomic weapons has made the world less safe. Well, guess what, they exist with or without Iran's help...so nothing changes if Iran has them or not.

Quote :

"do you really want to get into the usage of atomic weapons in WW2? I like how you try to derail the topic in the face of your ridiculousness. classic. whats next...am I racist too?"

Are you saying its ok to use atomic weapons as long as its the United States using them and its in their favor? Not sure what you're trying to get at here but it sounds disturbing and twisted.

Also there is nothing ridiculous about what i'm saying, except that you think so because i'm not siding with you and your twisted view of the world.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 1:51:11 PM

you are completely dodging the question and issue.

the question is if you believe the world is safer or less safe with IRAN having these weapons.

not a philosophical one where I asked you to opine on the world as a whole.

I argue we and the world as a whole are markedly less safe with an atomic Iran. I argue we must do whatever we can to prevent it. I think an atomic Iran means destabilization in the region at a minimum and increases the chances of an atomic event astronomically.

I am NOT arguing the sainthood of the US. foreign policy blunders and successes in our history is for another thread. This is specific to the country of Iran and how dangerous I (and the current administration) perceive them to be.

on the WWII note, do you not prescribe to the theory that the weapons used (hiroshima and nagasaki WERE legit targets btw) actually saved lives, vs a ground invasion? maybe we can discuss that in a different place.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 2:12:25 PM

Quote :

"the question is if you believe the world is safer or less safe with IRAN having these weapons. "

I already answered the question, kthx.

Quote :

"I argue we and the world as a whole are markedly less safe with an atomic Iran. I argue we must do whatever we can to prevent it. I think an atomic Iran means destabilization in the region at a minimum increases the chances of an atomic event astronomically. I am NOT arguing the sainthood of the US. foreign policy blunders and successes in our history is for another thread. This is specific to the country of Iran and how dangerous I (and the current administration) perceive them to be. "

Look, obviously the United States doesn't want a nation it could potentially go to war with to be Nuclear. This is obvious and I'm not arguing that point. Just like they didn't want Iraq to have them. The whole 'OMG they have WMD and will use them to destroy the world' propaganda is just another tactic to get the public on board for a war. In reality they would be defensive weapons just like everybody else with WMD.

Something the American public lacks a great deal, which explains your views quite well and also makes you so easy to manipulate by politicians and the media, is that you fail to realize you're not the only nation in the world, there are other people with different views than your own who also have a right to exist and dictate for themselves how they live their lives, form of government, etc. You also don't care to know. 'America, fuck yeah!'

I would be more worried if a nation we could potentially go to war with had the same kind of military advantage the United States enjoys in terms of weapon technology. (small arms, tanks, bombers, jets etc). All that will change with a nuclear Iran is the United States has one less nation it can bully freely.

Quote :

"on the WWII note, do you not prescribe to the theory that the weapons used (hiroshima and nagasaki WERE legit targets btw) actually saved lives, vs a ground invasion? maybe we can discuss that in a different place"

thats a good point, and i'm glad you brought it up. What do you think would have happened if Japan also had atomic bombs? Do you think that would have changed anything? Or lets say Iraq was nuclear and in their inevitable defeat, decided the only way they could end the war was to use nukes on US civilian populations? Obviously you would say this was wrong and an act against humanity. My point is, its your perspective, you fail to see things from the other side and thats your problem.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 2:13:04 PM

so I will go by your first stated opinion, that the world is "never safer" with the presence of atomic weapons.

so we agree.

why shouldnt we try to prevent them from having the weapons again?

12/17/2009 2:15:49 PM

because you can't prevent anyone from having them when you're hoarding enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet n times over. Human beings are human beings no matter what country they live in. You feel safe because your nation has nukes...while someone from a less fortunate nation doesn't because 1) the US views his government as a threat 2) his nation doesn't have nukes to defend itself with.

12/17/2009 2:30:37 PM

yes you can. there is where we disagree. I trust my government to have 1000 nuclear warheads. I do not trust Iran to have 1.

that 1 is more dangerous than our 1000 by a mile...its not even close.

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 2:36:14 PM