Iran

[suckseed]

Ok....I'm sure this will degenerate into a typical poli thread. But this 'we're going to Iran in two months' statement has me pondering. I even asked my customers about it last night, and they agreed with whoever said that here.
Ya know, I have to say that I'm not a typical liberal. I mean, I'm for peace if it's possible, but I have no problem with war if that's what's required. I just want it to be the right thing to do.
I'm worried about our military capabilities. Unless it's based on hardware, in which I think we still have superiority.
Would Russia take Iran's side?
Which way would the major Middle east counties go in terms of alliances?
Would we really use nukes? Aren't today's nukes something like 1000 times more powerful than WWII's? Wouldn't that render an entire country uninhabitable for thousands of years=no M.E. oil for anyone?

This next one is probably stupid, I know, but it's a hypothetical.
What would happen if we just put all our resources into defense and alternative energy, and walked away from middle east oil? I mean, if we could reduce or eliminate that resources value, we'd have 'em by the short hairs, right?

Conspiracy theory time: I read somewhere that many people think that some European countries will have a Muslim majority by 2050. Would 'caucasians' (loose term i know) in power be capable of some sort of nuclear or other Final Solution? Creepy, I know...just wondering.

Where would you guys recommend I go to educate myself about all this?
Is there any sort of thing that isn't seen by one side or the other as being biased? I mean, does the right and left still disagree about WWII? Korea?
Cuba/Bay of Pigs? Arthur Schlessinger? The Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire? How long does it take until the truth is agreed upon? And if it can't be, how the hell does a person decide what's right?
Anyway, as a reward for wading through all this, have a video!

[chefmike]

Trust in the Smirking Chimp.

He would never steer us wrong.

Would he?

Ok....I'm sure this will degenerate into a typical poli thread. But this 'we're going to Iran in two months' statement has me pondering. I even asked my customers about it last night, and they agreed with whoever said that here.
Ya know, I have to say that I'm not a typical liberal. I mean, I'm for peace if it's possible, but I have no problem with war if that's what's required. I just want it to be the right thing to do.

I'm pro-peace all the way, but not at the price of living or leaving my friends under the threat of fanatic tyranny.

This is what's required. One thing that secular idiots have never understood from the beginning of time, is the power of faith.

These fanatics in the Muslim world have faith! Small defeats, even big defeats will not discourage them. It's faith. Only 2 things will stop them.

Death
Crushing defeat

Not blowing up a pharmaceutical labs. Not getting on TV denouncing terrorism. Not passing UN sanctions. Not "Passing a global test".

Crushing defeat.

Secular morons don't understand the power of faith, so they don't understand the threat.

I'm worried about our military capabilities. Unless it's based on hardware, in which I think we still have superiority.

Take off the handcuffs (ie, ignore liberals) and we could take Iran faster than we took Iraq.

Would Russia take Iran's side?

Can't worry about that. Is it important? Hell yes. Should it prevent us from confronting the tyrant? NO. Is living with that fear WORSE than confronting it? YES

Which way would the major Middle east counties go in terms of alliances?

They'd probably side with us, which would enrage extremist sympathizers that much more. There'll be more terrorists as a result, no doubt. Take off the handcuffs and they'll be dead in a month. Threat eliminated.

Would we really use nukes?

Not us, Israel.

Aren't today's nukes something like 1000 times more powerful than WWII's? Wouldn't that render an entire country uninhabitable for thousands of years=no M.E. oil for anyone?

No

This next one is probably stupid, I know, but it's a hypothetical.
What would happen if we just put all our resources into defense and alternative energy, and walked away from middle east oil?

It's like life. The more you isolate yourself from the world, from other entities, the faster you'll become sick. We stood out of WW2 with this same thinking.

The threats over there will find you here. Only now, the stakes are higher.

I mean, if we could reduce or eliminate that resources value, we'd have 'em by the short hairs, right?

We'd reduce their influence, but ultimately they choose to be this way. It's how they want to live.

Conspiracy theory time: I read somewhere that many people think that some European countries will have a Muslim majority by 2050.

Under current euro-softness, mathematically its true.

Would 'caucasians' (loose term i know) in power be capable of some sort of nuclear or other Final Solution? Creepy, I know...just wondering.

Capable now. Not realistic.

Where would you guys recommend I go to educate myself about all this?

www.newamericancentury.org

Is there any sort of thing that isn't seen by one side or the other as being biased? I mean, does the right and left still disagree about WWII? Korea?

Yes, the left lives in their usual fantasyland on those issues as well.

Children growing older.

Cuba/Bay of Pigs? Arthur Schlessinger? The Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire? How long does it take until the truth is agreed upon?

America represents the truth. Islamofacism is the lie.

There are no mitigating factors. Nothing to hold committee over. Nothing for the UN to be involved with.

America is right.

And if it can't be, how the hell does a person decide what's right?
Anyway, as a reward for wading through all this, have a video!

Do you believe people have a right to live in peace? I do.

Moderate muslims have that right as much as Israel does. As much as India does, without threat from Pakistan. As much as Kashmir does, without threat from Islamofacism.

Islam, right now, is involved in 31 major conflicts globally.

It's at war with Hindu's, Buhddist, Christians, Atheists, ladyboys, Sunnis, Shia's and anyone who is not committed to the Abaisid Caliphate and ultimately, Islamic global domination.

Not the nice kind, either. The Burka kind.

[suckseed]

See there? TFan answered my questions within the framework of what he believes to be true, Mike weighed in, nobody got personal, and Bob's yer uncle. Well done, gentlemen! Now let's turn off the lights and pretend we're not home if WMC knocks!
Newamericancentury.org? That thing's still up? Wow. You know, I'm not the most informed man around, but I've often thought that these guys got their shot and blew it strategically. Really surprising. Easy for me to say, I know, but letting enormous caches of explosives go unsecured and spirited away into the desert? Releasing the Republican Guard on their own recognizance?
"Be good, boys." Losing the moral high ground via torture/constitutional erosion/illegal surveilance? Could you do a better job giving your political foes the popular vote? IF the neocons are right...with all their awesome political and military power, they fuxxored it up amazingly IMHO. I mean, I always got a kick out of Rumsfeld. See here:
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2795592/c...nel/viralvideo
Yeah, it's a comedy thing, but he seems like a likeable guy.
Cheney? Damn, I wouldn't want to fuck with him. Seems formidible.
Bush to me is the guy that does what he's told. Okay, all the chess pieces are lined up....they're sitting ducks! Here we are, the semi-informed public (who the hell knows?)...watching, waiting, hoping they're right, cause it's a happening no matter what we think about it. There's the kickoff....Blammo!
Shock and awe..I didn't leave the TV for two days. I was ordering pizza and I couldn't stop watching. Wow...okay....we're not gettin' slaughtered in Baghdad...kickass! Then....the big fizzle. There should have been martial law. Drive too close to a checkpoint....kablooey. Fire a weapon...say goodbye to a city block. Overwhelming force with air support will take the wind out of anyone's sails...remember '91? Build refugee camps - airdrop leaflets saying....you citizens better hightail it out of there. Free food and shelter in Camp Oasis. And the borders are closed til further notice. Anything that moves in....blammo!!!
Where's all our high-tech look-through-walls James Bond shit? Where all all these incendiary device materials coming from? Oh yeah....the unsecured borders and caches ignored four years ago.
Jumpin Jesus, neocons! Ya had everything you needed! Brilliant military minds! Supercomputers! Sharks with laser beams!
Am I missing something?

[specialk]

Ok....I'm sure this will degenerate into a typical poli thread. But this 'we're going to Iran in two months' statement has me pondering. I even asked my customers about it last night, and they agreed with whoever said that here.
Ya know, I have to say that I'm not a typical liberal. I mean, I'm for peace if it's possible, but I have no problem with war if that's what's required. I just want it to be the right thing to do.

I'm pro-peace all the way, but not at the price of living or leaving my friends under the threat of fanatic tyranny.

This is what's required. One thing that secular idiots have never understood from the beginning of time, is the power of faith.

These fanatics in the Muslim world have faith! Small defeats, even big defeats will not discourage them. It's faith. Only 2 things will stop them.

Death
Crushing defeat

Not blowing up a pharmaceutical labs. Not getting on TV denouncing terrorism. Not passing UN sanctions. Not "Passing a global test".

Crushing defeat.

Secular morons don't understand the power of faith, so they don't understand the threat.

I'm worried about our military capabilities. Unless it's based on hardware, in which I think we still have superiority.

Take off the handcuffs (ie, ignore liberals) and we could take Iran faster than we took Iraq.

Would Russia take Iran's side?

Can't worry about that. Is it important? Hell yes. Should it prevent us from confronting the tyrant? NO. Is living with that fear WORSE than confronting it? YES

Which way would the major Middle east counties go in terms of alliances?

They'd probably side with us, which would enrage extremist sympathizers that much more. There'll be more terrorists as a result, no doubt. Take off the handcuffs and they'll be dead in a month. Threat eliminated.

Would we really use nukes?

Not us, Israel.

Aren't today's nukes something like 1000 times more powerful than WWII's? Wouldn't that render an entire country uninhabitable for thousands of years=no M.E. oil for anyone?

No

This next one is probably stupid, I know, but it's a hypothetical.
What would happen if we just put all our resources into defense and alternative energy, and walked away from middle east oil?

It's like life. The more you isolate yourself from the world, from other entities, the faster you'll become sick. We stood out of WW2 with this same thinking.

The threats over there will find you here. Only now, the stakes are higher.

I mean, if we could reduce or eliminate that resources value, we'd have 'em by the short hairs, right?

We'd reduce their influence, but ultimately they choose to be this way. It's how they want to live.

Conspiracy theory time: I read somewhere that many people think that some European countries will have a Muslim majority by 2050.

Under current euro-softness, mathematically its true.

Would 'caucasians' (loose term i know) in power be capable of some sort of nuclear or other Final Solution? Creepy, I know...just wondering.

Capable now. Not realistic.

Where would you guys recommend I go to educate myself about all this?

www.newamericancentury.org

Is there any sort of thing that isn't seen by one side or the other as being biased? I mean, does the right and left still disagree about WWII? Korea?

Yes, the left lives in their usual fantasyland on those issues as well.

Children growing older.

Cuba/Bay of Pigs? Arthur Schlessinger? The Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire? How long does it take until the truth is agreed upon?

America represents the truth. Islamofacism is the lie.

There are no mitigating factors. Nothing to hold committee over. Nothing for the UN to be involved with.

America is right.

And if it can't be, how the hell does a person decide what's right?
Anyway, as a reward for wading through all this, have a video!

Do you believe people have a right to live in peace? I do.


Once again Tcup is right...........all of the above pertains to all secular idiots.....including the ones in the White House!!

Moderate muslims have that right as much as Israel does. As much as India does, without threat from Pakistan. As much as Kashmir does, without threat from Islamofacism.

Islam, right now, is involved in 31 major conflicts globally.

It's at war with Hindu's, Buhddist, Christians, Atheists, ladyboys, Sunnis, Shia's and anyone who is not committed to the Abaisid Caliphate and ultimately, Islamic global domination.

Not the nice kind, either. The Burka kind.

[chefmike]

Lunatics at the Helm

Sunday, 28 January 2007
Paul J. Balles

Having a lunatic in the White House is dangerous. Lest anyone think that the label exaggerates odd behaviour, look closely at the latest madness.

What president, in his right mind, would ignore his generals, change several generals for one who sucks up to the boss, ignore the Congress and the mandate given the Congress by the voters, ignore the CIA and the intelligence community, ignore the Baker bipartisan commission and ignore the soldiers dying and getting maimed in a civil war that has nothing to do with the security or safety of America?

A recent analysis of biographical sources by psychiatrists at Duke University Medical Center revealed that almost half of American presidents from 1789 to 1974 had suffered from a mental illness at some point in life, and more than half of those presidents, the study found, struggled with their symptoms — most often depression — while in office.

The study's report hastened to add, however, "What is hopeful about this is that it is evidence that people can suffer from depression or other mental problems and still function at a presidential level, if not at their best,"

President G W Bush functions as a speechmaker who refers to himself as the decider. Unfortunately the evidence indicates clearly that he can't function as the decider. On 9/11, he kept reading to children for 20 minutes after being informed that a highjacked plane had flown into the World Trade Center.

Bombing and invading Iraq and lying about why to the US Congress, the public and the rest of the world, was madness so unbelievable that after discovering the fraud people still wanted to give him a chance to turn the lies into realities.

Spurred on by the Israeli lobby and the hawks in Israel, the mad hatter added incredible support to the bombing and destruction of Lebanon’s entire infrastructure—more lunacy toward a country he complains to support.

A president who suddenly does an about face in his state of the union address about his concern over global warming and health care, when he has ignored those issues for six years, has to be out of his mind to think that his bluffs will convince anyone.

This article started off with "Having a lunatic in the White House is dangerous.” What's the clear and present danger? Once more, G W Bush is ready to yield to Israeli and American Zionist pressure to pre-emptively strike at Iran, with excuses about their nuclear ambitions.

This will all be done without any real assessment of Iran's development and use of nuclear power. Israel and the administrative dual loyalists don't want Iran to have any nuclear capabilities.

Several leading Israeli hawks have already threatened a military strike against Iran if America fails to act. This, as in the back-room campaigns to get the US to invade Iraq, is meant to get the US to act. AIPAC and Abe Foxman have already taken up the Israeli cause in America.

The other danger--an equally mad lunatic in Ahmedinejad, whose rhetoric was not what some interpreted it to mean-- may have been crazy enough to allow misinterpretations of his rhetoric to go unchallenged and uncorrected out of a mentally ill delight in the amount of attention he's been getting.

Challenging the US and Israel, as Ahmedinejad has done is the behaviour of a lunatic whether he intended what the Zionist propagandists have accused him of or not. The provocation, if responded to as Israel and the US want, will certainly result in millions of deaths and chaos in the Middle East. That's not the sort of thing done by a leader with a sane mind.

Two reasonable proposals made by Iran have been ignored by the US. One was Ahmadinejad’s challenge to debate Bush. The US and Israel, however, are not interested in replacing destruction with words. The second snub of words by the US came when Iran frankly offered to enter into discussions and the US, on shabby grounds, refused.

Thus, we have two lunatics leading us into World War III, without the slightest concern for the number of lives lost or the damage done to the planet. Can we, just once, have large enough protests around the world, and especially in America, to pre-empt the madness of pre-emptive strike mentalities?

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/821/81/

[suckseed]

Thanks for that, Mike.
To be sure, my remarks were not meant to convey bloodlust - I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't hate people from the Middle East.

[chefmike]

Thanks for that, Mike.
To be sure, my remarks were not meant to convey bloodlust - I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't hate people from the Middle East.

I saw it today and thought that it was relevant to your thread.

Especially in light of the 'Dr. Strangeglove' scenarios that are being bandied about lately by the 'true believers' on both sides of the issue.

[Navi]

Israel almost started ww3 on the 3rd, by trying to drop a nuke on iran, it was stopped by france and bush order the "kill order" on all iran people in iraq, ok why would he do that, we just asking for iran to go to war. where trying to pull iran in to the iraq war.

[guyone]

You see here is where the bolsheviks (Paul J. Balles - one who would like to see the end of freedom for the people and to the principles of America) spread their filth.

President G W Bush functions as a speechmaker who refers to himself as the decider. Unfortunately the evidence indicates clearly that he can't function as the decider. On 9/11, he kept reading to children for 20 minutes after being informed that a highjacked plane had flown into the World Trade Center.

This propaganda laden paragraph clearly states that Pres. Bush gleefully kept reading to children while 'Rome Burned'. When in reality no one knew it was a terrorist attack until the second plane flew into the other tower. He was informed that a commercial airjet accidently flew into one of the World Trade Center towers. That was it.