'Occupy' types

Call me stupid, but I don't think Israel or Pakistan would willingly give terrorist nuclear weapons. Trust me, I think our alliance with Israel is one of the reasons we are targets of terrorism. However, I am not going to naively believe that Iran wouldn't use their nukes in the Middle East or even on us.

One of the top reasons.

:laughing2

Here we go with the age old liberal mantra of "No blood for oil".
And still we didnt get any oil......pffffftttt
Iran isnt about oil.
Its about fanatics with nukes.
Its about an eight year old wildly swinging a bayonet in a crowded room.


I didn't say we were stealing the oil or that it would be free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/world/middleeast/iraq-criticizes-exxonmobil-on-kurdistan-oil-pursuits.html

Nah, it wasn't about oil.

http://www.yellowdoggereldemocrat.org/images/oil_price_rise.gif


Oh, you say it's about fanatics with nukes eh? Much like Saddam Hussein?..lol Didn't we hear this same shit back in 2002?

KMKkQx_dTC4


Number of countries Iran has bombed in the past decade- 0
Number of countries the US has bombed in the past decade- 8


Yemen 2002

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

Iraq 2003-present

Afghanistan 2001-present

Pakistan 2007-present

Somalia 2007-8, 2011

Yemen 2009, 2011

Libya 2011

Who's the fanatics with nukes again? I'm confused. :doh:

Again, you are missing the part where Iran constantly threatens to annihilate Israel.

A few well placed JDAMS today is a lot better than having the western end of the Mediterranean become a giant cesium zone tomorrow.

Again, you are missing the part where Iran constantly threatens to annihilate Israel.

A few well placed JDAMS today is a lot better than having the western end of the Mediterranean become a giant cesium zone tomorrow.


Meanwhile, in the real world.

Ex Israeli Pilot who talks about the war crimes his own countries are committing.
zkwiJ-3i5r8

0bdbA2Ka3Bo


amzTEvRoOVE

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f237/redstout/deflectioncard.jpg

Nice videos.....
The last one was highly edited and a total hoax.
Gimme a break.....

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

How about you assume, when I ask a question that I would like to know the answer to the question asked. As usual, you twist the original question to fit the facts you now find. Originally you asserted:

Iran. They want to invade bad.

In response, I asked:

Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when I said "invade" you weren't bright enough to pick up from the context that I meant sending ground troops - not bombing or other "military options".

Let me be clear: I assumed that, when you said:

It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering.

you meant boots on the ground invasion. None of the statements you provided suggest to me that any one of the candidates is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

As to bombing or other strikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, it's pretty clear that, at this point, that's where the Republican candidates are (as well as Obama for that matter). Further, I agree with you to the extent that such an option, even if not intended, creates a real possibility of a land war (What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the Iranians are about to execute a US pilot?). It's clear, however, that the concept of Iran with nukes has pretty much most of the west on edge.

Why? I would suggest it is b/c of the jihadist nature of the governing theocracy. You site Israel as having a nuke as a reason to allow Iran's progress to becoming a nuclear power. The difference, I think, is that Israel is a rational state and will not take actions that would lead to the end of its existence as a state. Not so sure the Iranian govt. has those same "thought" processes. The current Iranian regime operates by an agenda not necessarilly governed by a "cost/benefit" analysis. Rather, it is under a authoritarian theocracy that funds/assists and encourages suicide bombers. If you are unconcerned by their gaining the ability to kill millions quickly, then you either one heartless dude or one impassioned zealot.

This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

There are a lot of similarities and it is a concern. I agree and I hope that military intervention is ultimately avoided. Even stripping this last statement of your typical hysteria, logical leaps and hyperbole, however, it is much different assertion than your original statement and accusation that unidentified "far right crew" is seeking to put military ground units into and go "balls deep" in Iran.

So ... Let's get the crux. What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that they will show the same restraint that other nuclear nations have done? Are certain that, once developed, they would share the technology with like minded jihadists regimes or groups? Do you think that their possesion of nuclear arms creates a more stable or less stable middle east? Once in possesion of such a weapon is it your believe they present no threat to the US or our allies? If a threat is presented to our allies - Israel, Saudi Arabia, what backing can/should we give them? If we w/draw from the mideast altogether: How do we protect our shipping lines from piracy? What effect will it have on our economy?

B/c of our reliance on foreign oil, our economy is hopelessly entangled in the middle east. Throw in the US commitment to Israel, and there just aren't simple answers. I suggest to you, again, that Paul's simplistic foreign policy is just as dangerous and destabilizing to both regional and world peace as are the "war drums" that you are so fanatical about.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f237/redstout/deflectioncard.jpg

Nice videos.....
The last one was highly edited and a total hoax.
Gimme a break.....


LOL. Coming from you, that's rich. You haven't shown shit, but spouted talking points from dumbasses on the TV and main stream media. You keep talking about Iran and how they are "talking" about wiping the Israelis out and I show you that's exactly what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. BUT....that's deflection?...lololol


...but yeah, this map doesn't mean squat. They aren't systematically wiping out the Arabs and going against a UN resolution.


http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/israel-palestine_map.jpg

So its all about Palestine now??????
This thread has more curves in it than a slinky.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s274/gmscud/Liberals.jpg

How about you assume, when I ask a question that I would like to know the answer to the question asked. As usual, you twist the original question to fit the facts you now find. Originally you asserted:



In response, I asked:



Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when I said "invade" you weren't bright enough to pick up from the context that I meant sending ground troops - not bombing or other "military options".

Let me be clear: I assumed that, when you said:



you meant boots on the ground invasion. None of the statements you provided suggest to me that any one of the candidates is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

As to bombing or other strikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, it's pretty clear that, at this point, that's where the Republican candidates are (as well as Obama for that matter). Further, I agree with you to the extent that such an option, even if not intended, creates a real possibility of a land war (What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the Iranians are about to execute a US pilot?). It's clear, however, that the concept of Iran with nukes has pretty much most of the west on edge.

Why? I would suggest it is b/c of the jihadist nature of the governing theocracy. You site Israel as having a nuke as a reason to allow Iran's progress to becoming a nuclear power. The difference, I think, is that Israel is a rational state and will not take actions that would lead to the end of its existence as a state. Not so sure the Iranian govt. has those same "thought" processes. The current Iranian regime operates by an agenda not necessarilly governed by a "cost/benefit" analysis. Rather, it is under a authoritarian theocracy that funds/assists and encourages suicide bombers. If you are unconcerned by their gaining the ability to kill millions quickly, then you either one heartless dude or one impassioned zealot.





There are a lot of similarities and it is a concern. I agree and I hope that military intervention is ultimately avoided. Even stripping this last statement of your typical hysteria, logical leaps and hyperbole, however, it is much different assertion than your original statement and accusation that unidentified "far right crew" is seeking to put military ground units into and go "balls deep" in Iran.

So ... Let's get the crux. What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that they will show the same restraint that other nuclear nations have done? Are certain that, once developed, they would share the technology with like minded jihadists regimes or groups? Do you think that their possesion of nuclear arms creates a more stable or less stable middle east? Once in possesion of such a weapon is it your believe they present no threat to the US or our allies? If a threat is presented to our allies - Israel, Saudi Arabia, what backing can/should we give them? If we w/draw from the mideast altogether: How do we protect our shipping lines from piracy? What effect will it have on our economy?

B/c of our reliance on foreign oil, our economy is hopelessly entangled in the middle east. Throw in the US commitment to Israel, and there just aren't simple answers. I suggest to you, again, that Paul's simplistic foreign policy is just as dangerous and destabilizing to both regional and world peace as are the "war drums" that you are so fanatical about.

Nicely done.