Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Such you've got such an itchy trigger finger, I suggest you put on your fatigues and go over to Iran and start your own holy war. You make the personal sacrifice, instead of asking others to do so.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, has asserted that war with Iran is inevitable except Barack Hussein Obama and Democrats. Why did you fall for that lie?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Ok, now we're seeing some clear-minded progress. Now liberals are saying "slow's Iran's progress" instead of "preventing" development of a nuclear weapon.
What made you come to your senses? LOL
And what reason is there to believe that slowing Iran's progress isn't the best we can do without the cost exceeding the benefit? i.e. Is it worth another full scale invasion/occupation to avoid what possibly, maybe, could happen?
You are dense as hell, I was referring to the unimaginative fools who thoought it was imposible to defeat the USSR without going to war, not nuking them into submision. Read a history book before posting here anymore
Sound familiar? Of course it does. Guess who has a nuclear weapon? North Korea.
Why are Democrats and liberals so farking naive?
Why are Republicans and conservatives so oblivious of history? The Clinton administration created an agreement with North Korea, which strangely, Republicans disparaged. Then when Bush was elected the U.S. pulled back from providing North Korea with power and fuel for energy and then took its time "reassessing its policies, North Korea began to withdraw from the agreement.
And what reason is there to believe that slowing Iran's progress isn't the best we can do without the cost exceeding the benefit? i.e. Is it worth another full scale invasion/occupation to avoid what possibly, maybe, could happen?
Wow, lots of you unimaginative people here today. It is not just a choice between capitulation or war.
Here, let me improve the discussion. If you think the Islamofacist, radical, nut job, 12vers running Iran's government are just as rational as all the other governments with nukes, then do not comment in this thread. Thanks
You're absolutely right. The frightening aspect of an Iranian nuke is the lack of rationality of an extremist regime with beliefs based on radical Islam:
There is a critical flaw in making analogies between the radical Islamic regime in control of Iran with the other states that have nuclear weapons, including N. Korea. And rationality is the basic difference:
Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Princeton U., as well as many other experts, firmly believes a nuclear Islamic Republic would be a unique threat due the nature of the Shiite regime:
"There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Khomeini, Ahmadinejad and his disciples." That of course includes the current Supreme Leader.
Lewis goes on to explain that they fervently believe in the return of the 12th Imam, who will be ushered in as a result of an apocalypse:
"The most dangerous leaders in history are those like Hitler and the radicals in control of Iran, fueled by totalitarian ideologies and mystical belief systems. The regime leaders believe in the imminent return of 12th Imam, which they further believes they can hasten. They also sense that they have a personal responsibility to expedite the return of the Mahdi and is therefore preparing Iran for the apocalypse."
"Allah’s designated Mahdi is the only one who demands a violent path to conquer the world. The regime's leaders say they have a ‘signed contract’ with al Mahdi in which they pledge themselves to his work. What does this work involve? In light of concerns over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, they have stated numerous times, in one form or another, that Israel should be wiped off the map. Former president Achmadinajad spoke to the United Nations in September ’05. During that speech he claims to have been in an aura of light and felt a change in the atmosphere during which time no one present could blink their eyes. Iran’s PM also spoke in apocalyptic terms and seems to relish conflict with the West whom he calls the Great Satan. This is while he proclaims he must prepare the world for the coming Mahdi by way of a world totally under Muslim control. He is working hard to bring about the world-wide horrors that must be in place for their al Mahdi to bring peace." And he fervently believes in the return of the 12th Imam, who will be ushered in as a result of an apocalypse: 12th Imam
And this also explains why the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), the situation which existed between the US and the Soviet Union, has NO significance when it comes to radical Islam.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,524,552 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates
That's just absurd isn't it?
A scenario that would depend on Iran breaking their agreement? IRAN, of all countries? \
Yeah these people are conspiracy theorists.
ROTFLMAO @ Iran breaking it's word...
But there in lies the fault in your argument.
The OP said the deal in and of itself wont work, and then argued that the reasoning for that is that Iran cant be trusted.
While it may be true that they can not be trusted, that has nothing to do with the deal itself. if the deal is followed, Iran wont be able to build a nuke, it is that simple.
There are corrupt, bought and paid for politicians on both sides of the isle who wanted to end sanctions becuase the greedy deep pockets corporations and banks wanted to make money in Iran. You just label them all as "conservatives" cuz it is all you know
Why are Republicans and conservatives so oblivious of history? The Clinton administration created an agreement with North Korea, which strangely, Republicans disparaged. Then when Bush was elected the U.S. pulled back from providing North Korea with power and fuel for energy and then took its time "reassessing its policies, North Korea began to withdraw from the agreement.
It was yet another tactic by Republicans to trick us into a war with North Korea and line up their defense contractor pockets.
The OP said the deal in and of itself wont work, and then argued that the reasoning for that is that Iran cant be trusted.
While it may be true that they can not be trusted, that has nothing to do with the deal itself. if the deal is followed, Iran wont be able to build a nuke, it is that simple.
The mental gymnastics and ideological contortionism in this post is just spectacular. You are arguing that Iran can't possibly develop a nuclear weapon if it follows the deal while simultaneously acknowledging that Iran can't be trusted.
It would be funny if it weren't so doggone sad the lengths you folks will go to prop up this President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
