A house divided upon itself cannot stand...

[Duwelon]

Link

Iran is hellbent on acquring nuclear capabilities. Their President, Mamoud Ahmadinjad or however you spell it, has recieved the support of his mullahs for re-election. That, coupled with the vicious hatred he has for Israel and his matter of fact cries that Israel will soon be wiped off the map will leave any realist taking a closer look at least. Combined with Iran's open support and covert supplying of Hizbollah and Hamas, it's clear Iran is the single major threat to world peace today.

What does left want to do then, for a rally aimed at reigning in support for opposition to Iran's leader, and his psychopathic religious ferver for the destruction of the jewish state?

Hillary backed out because Palin was going to be there. Palin was un-invited because her very invitation brought on the ire of the left.

We are on the brink of what could turn into WW3 and the left are acting like children, taking a serious matter and doing the worst thing you can do, shatter the support and bolster the enemies' resolve.

I'm sure the people who watch nothing but the Daily SHow on here for their news will post the usual BS about how it doesn't matter, how funny spongebob is, or other meaningless tripe to obfoscate the point, but the truth is, the left is going to allow WW3 to happen with their irresponsible actions. Write your congressmen, Democrats and Republicans and urge them to work together to find a solution on Iran, or we're all screwed if the Mullah's faith is real, which it very much is.

 

[IronWing]

The thought of a nuclear armed Iran doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[miketheidiot]

ahahahah

 

[sandorski]

Like Bush, Mahmoud will soon be gone. Like Americans, Iranians will enjoy seeing their Leader leave.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Topic Summary: ... how partisan hatred could usher in WW3

Good

This country is cooked anyway.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ironwing
The thought of a nuclear armed Iran doesn't bother me in the least.

It should bother you a little bit (ethnically I'm Iranian and it bothers me), but it's not a direct precursor to the end of humanity or anything. I just prefer that as few people as possible have access to that kind of weaponry.

Iran knows what happens if a nuke goes off in Israel and it is traced back to them: It equals the end of Iran. And as terrible as Iran's leaders are, they are very practiced and determined to preserve their bodies and souls for as long as possible. Nothing to worry about anytime soon.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Link

Iran is hellbent on acquring nuclear capabilities. Their President, Mamoud Ahmadinjad or however you spell it, has recieved the support of his mullahs for re-election. That, coupled with the vicious hatred he has for Israel and his matter of fact cries that Israel will soon be wiped off the map will leave any realist taking a closer look at least. Combined with Iran's open support and covert supplying of Hizbollah and Hamas, it's clear Iran is the single major threat to world peace today.

What does left want to do then, for a rally aimed at reigning in support for opposition to Iran's leader, and his psychopathic religious ferver for the destruction of the jewish state?

Hillary backed out because Palin was going to be there. Palin was un-invited because her very invitation brought on the ire of the left.

We are on the brink of what could turn into WW3 and the left are acting like children, taking a serious matter and doing the worst thing you can do, shatter the support and bolster the enemies' resolve.

I'm sure the people who watch nothing but the Daily SHow on here for their news will post the usual BS about how it doesn't matter, how funny spongebob is, or other meaningless tripe to obfoscate the point, but the truth is, the left is going to allow WW3 to happen with their irresponsible actions. Write your congressmen, Democrats and Republicans and urge them to work together to find a solution on Iran, or we're all screwed if the Mullah's faith is real, which it very much is.

lol, I like how your thread title suggests that partisan hatred could actually lead to nuclear warfare, then you spent the entire OP howling about the "left".

And there's no way that Iran is the "single major threat to world peace today". There are many major threats, including an emboldened Russia, unstable Pakistan, populist South America etc. etc.

But by far the biggest threat is the country with the largest military, the largest nuclear stockpile, the most weapons sales, and the only country (I think) to start two wars of aggression in the last 10 years.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Link

Iran is hellbent on acquring nuclear capabilities. Their President, Mamoud Ahmadinjad or however you spell it, has recieved the support of his mullahs for re-election. That, coupled with the vicious hatred he has for Israel and his matter of fact cries that Israel will soon be wiped off the map will leave any realist taking a closer look at least. Combined with Iran's open support and covert supplying of Hizbollah and Hamas, it's clear Iran is the single major threat to world peace today.

What does left want to do then, for a rally aimed at reigning in support for opposition to Iran's leader, and his psychopathic religious ferver for the destruction of the jewish state?

Hillary backed out because Palin was going to be there. Palin was un-invited because her very invitation brought on the ire of the left.

We are on the brink of what could turn into WW3 and the left are acting like children, taking a serious matter and doing the worst thing you can do, shatter the support and bolster the enemies' resolve.

I'm sure the people who watch nothing but the Daily SHow on here for their news will post the usual BS about how it doesn't matter, how funny spongebob is, or other meaningless tripe to obfoscate the point, but the truth is, the left is going to allow WW3 to happen with their irresponsible actions. Write your congressmen, Democrats and Republicans and urge them to work together to find a solution on Iran, or we're all screwed if the Mullah's faith is real, which it very much is.

lol, I like how your thread title suggests that partisan hatred could actually lead to nuclear warfare, then you spent the entire OP howling about the "left".

I suppose you would have accepted the facts for facts if they weren't against the left. What a fool.

 

[Perknose]

I saw who the OP was, I saw the thread was decrying "paritsan hatred", and I KNEW this thread would feature Duwelon's one-note partisan hatred of the "left", wrapped in one big ball of shrill and shallow codswallop.

Pathetic and predictable. 🙁

Ahmadinejad has no real power in Iran. He will be rebuked, reigned in or replaced anytime the ruling mullahs so desire.

 

[ScottyB]

I think we should all be the same with no difference in thought or action. It is the only way we can truly be happy.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

I suppose you would have accepted the facts for facts if they weren't against the left. What a fool.

Against the left? LOL. Did you read that article? It was a protest against Ahmadinejad held in New York. Then the "right wing" protesters tried to turn it into an anti-Obama protest (Even though Obama had fuck-all to do with it). I was in tears by the end of that article.

...
"I am upset by the sign because this is a non-political event," said Janice Shorenstein, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council.
...

Yes Janice, what could be less political than Iranian - Israeli relations?


Thanks for this stellar thread Duwelon, if anything is going to lead to WW III, it is this.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ironwing
The thought of a nuclear armed Iran doesn't bother me in the least.

It should bother you a little bit (ethnically I'm Iranian and it bothers me), but it's not a direct precursor to the end of humanity or anything. I just prefer that as few people as possible have access to that kind of weaponry.

Iran knows what happens if a nuke goes off in Israel and it is traced back to them: It equals the end of Iran. And as terrible as Iran's leaders are, they are very practiced and determined to preserve their bodies and souls for as long as possible. Nothing to worry about anytime soon.

But who is to say who should or shouldn't have it? The fact that someone will go to war over it makes me raise my eyebrow...its basically saying war is peace.

Of course there is a smart point you hit - the rulers of Iran want to stay as the rulers of Iran. Nuclear bombs don't erase existence - their signatures can be measured and the source of origin can be determined.

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

 

[nakedfrog]

You of all people have no leg to stand on complaining about partisan hatred.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

Nobody is arguing that nukes aren't a deterrent.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

Nobody is arguing that nukes aren't a deterrent.

That pretty much wraps up this thread.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

Nobody is arguing that nukes aren't a deterrent.

That pretty much wraps up this thread.

Are you braindead? The point of the OP was to point out how despite the greatest threat to world peace, Hillary can't find it in herself to attend an event with Palin.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Ahmadinejad has no real power in Iran. He will be rebuked, reigned in or replaced anytime the ruling mullahs so desire.

The problem is, he's lockstep with the Mullahs. Even if he doesn't call the shots, they love his hatespeech against Israel enough to want to keep around another term.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

Nobody is arguing that nukes aren't a deterrent.

That pretty much wraps up this thread.

Are you braindead? The point of the OP was to point out how despite the greatest threat to world peace, Hillary can't find it in herself to attend an event with Palin.

How is a deterrent the greatest threat to world peace? Duh! Try for a bit of coherence in your rantings.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

Nobody is arguing that nukes aren't a deterrent.

That pretty much wraps up this thread.

Are you braindead? The point of the OP was to point out how despite the greatest threat to world peace, Hillary can't find it in herself to attend an event with Palin.

How is a deterrent the greatest threat to world peace? Duh! Try for a bit of coherence in your rantings.

Do you even realize what Iran is up to? Do you consider what they're doing today? Do you have any clue whatsoever about contingency planning?

Consider for a moment what Iran is up to and what they've done: supplied thousands and thousands of rockets to terrorist groups that vow the destruction of Israel and America. Once they get nukes, do you think they'll slow down their support for Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, etc? The problem with Iran having nukes is they can then be much more open about their willingness to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Right now, there is a chance that they'll be attacked which could destroy their ambitions for total domination of the region. Once they have nukes, there will be no stopping them. They can say "we're going after Israel, if you try to stop us we're going to nuke you."

The difference between a country like Russia today and IRan is that Iran is perfectly willing, due to their religion, to do exactly this. MAD prevented Russia from stiking the US during the Cold War, and they were mostly rational people. Iran's leader, who believes he will usher in the Islamic Messiah in a time of "Great calamity", is not so rational. EDIT: It needs to be stressed that what Ahmadinjad believes, the Mullah's SUPPORT. You cannot just say Ahmadinjad isn't the true leader of Iran, which I agree with in a way, because it's crystal clear he is on the same page as the mullah's regarding nuclear ambitions whatever they are, and Israel, and eventually the USA or EU.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: magomago

I honestly believe that Iran's nukes are, if they actually are developing them, for defensive purposes. We should look at the reasons that they rush to develop nuclear technology as opposed to think they want this war like showdown of religious proportions.

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. If I'm Iranian I damn sure want my country to be nuclear. Especially after seeing what happened my non-nuclear neighbor: attacked with a WMD pretext.

Nobody is arguing that nukes aren't a deterrent.

That pretty much wraps up this thread.

Are you braindead? The point of the OP was to point out how despite the greatest threat to world peace, Hillary can't find it in herself to attend an event with Palin.

How is a deterrent the greatest threat to world peace? Duh! Try for a bit of coherence in your rantings.

Do you even realize what Iran is up to? Do you consider what they're doing today? Do you have any clue whatsoever about contingency planning?

Consider for a moment what Iran is up to and what they've done: supplied thousands and thousands of rockets to terrorist groups that vow the destruction of Israel and America. Once they get nukes, do you think they'll slow down their support for Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, etc? The problem with Iran having nukes is they can then be much more open about their willingness to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Right now, there is a chance that they'll be attacked which could destroy their ambitions for total domination of the region. Once they have nukes, there will be no stopping them. They can say "we're going after Israel, if you try to stop us we're going to nuke you."

The difference between a country like Russia today and IRan is that Iran is perfectly willing, due to their religion, to do exactly this. MAD prevented Russia from stiking the US during the Cold War, and they were mostly rational people. Iran's leader, who believes he will usher in the Islamic Messiah in a time of "Great calamity", is not so rational.

Given your predilection for ranting and raving like a lunatic, maybe judging the rationality of others isn't your strong suit. Iran has behaved in an extremely rational manner since the revolution. From the Iranian perspective, obtaining nukes is the only path to national security in the face of frothing mouthed Americans hell bent on Iran's destruction. Americans that supported Saddam's war against Iran. Americans that shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in cold blood. Deterrence works; that is why the Bushies have their undies in a knot over Iran's nuclear ambitions; the Bushies don't want to be deterred from another pointless war.

 

[miketheidiot]

Ahmadinjad is just a tool of the mullahs to focus internal struggles on an external foe. The last thing the real leaders of iran want is the end of Israel.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Given your predilection for ranting and raving like a lunatic, maybe judging the rationality of others isn't your strong suit. Iran has behaved in an extremely rational manner since the revolution. From the Iranian perspective, obtaining nukes is the only path to national security in the face of frothing mouthed Americans hell bent on Iran's destruction. Americans that supported Saddam's war against Iran. Americans that shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in cold blood. Deterrence works; that is why the Bushies have their undies in a knot over Iran's nuclear ambitions; the Bushies don't want to be deterred from another pointless war.

I'm not going to play your personal insults game. I know what I know and I know what I am, and froth mouthed and raving like a lunatic isn't it. I have strong opinions and I'm not deterred by a bunch of leftists on a forum from presenting them in a direct manner. Dont' like it? too bad.

That said, there is another solution to Iran's security problem that you and your type seem to just completely ignore, or couldn't recognize from a hole in the ground apparently.

Iran could, you know, stop sponsoring hizbollah / hamas and retract their calls to wipe Israel off the map. That would be true peace, but it's never their fault is it? It's only America's fault right?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

I'm not going to play your personal insults game. I know what I know and I know what I am, and froth mouthed and raving like a lunatic isn't it. I have strong opinions and I'm not deterred by a bunch of leftists on a forum from presenting them in a direct manner. Dont' like it? too bad.

That said, there is another solution to Iran's security problem that you and your type seem to just completely ignore, or couldn't recognize from a hole in the ground apparently.

Iran could, you know, stop sponsoring hizbollah / hamas and retract their calls to wipe Israel off the map. That would be true peace, but it's never their fault is it? It's only America's fault right?

Do you even read what you write? Go back up the thread and see if you can spot the first personal insult. Take your time. Let me know what you find.

As far as Israel is concerned two points: 1) Israel made its own bed; 2) Israel has a deterrent capacity sufficient to take care of itself.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

I'm not going to play your personal insults game. I know what I know and I know what I am, and froth mouthed and raving like a lunatic isn't it. I have strong opinions and I'm not deterred by a bunch of leftists on a forum from presenting them in a direct manner. Dont' like it? too bad.

That said, there is another solution to Iran's security problem that you and your type seem to just completely ignore, or couldn't recognize from a hole in the ground apparently.

Iran could, you know, stop sponsoring hizbollah / hamas and retract their calls to wipe Israel off the map. That would be true peace, but it's never their fault is it? It's only America's fault right?

Do you even read what you write? Go back up the thread and see if you can spot the first personal insult. Take your time. Let me know what you find.

As far as Israel is concerned two points: 1) Israel made its own bed; 2) Israel has a deterrent capacity sufficient to take care of itself.

Are of the opinion then that Iran has a right and a 'just cause' for trying to destroy israel and terrorize it's citizens?