A house divided upon itself cannot stand...

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: 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?

You haven't shown that Iran is trying to destroy Israel or terrorize its citizens so your question is moot.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: 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?

Unfortunately you have allowed them to deter you into a different direction with your discussion.

Your main point I believe is that Hillary should not have got her panties in a knot because Palin was invited.
A valid point!

Nor should a few whiners have gotten Palin uninvited.
A valid point!

Instead of an opportunity to present a United States of America they have presented a Divided States of America.
This type of petty bickering does no one any good!

 

[magomago]

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. 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.

No I think you are quite wrong. The Mullahs have shown to be very rational about what they do, and the upcoming 20 year rule of their Islamic republic, regardless the many problems they have, is such a sign.

IMO, The crazy mad ones are those who believe that they have a right to land because their God told them they could take it from people who live on it. Manifest destiny never makes any sense.

Originally posted by: 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.

IMO long lasting peace is something that would weaken the Irani leaders...because it removes about 90% of their rhetoric. Of course, peace would also weaken the Israeli extremists and right. Peace is what all the people want, but what everyone with power despises.

 

[Moonbeam]

Paranoids try to infect others with their disease in forums and wherever else they can. It helps them to feel important instead of little.

 

[Thump553]

Saying the left WANTS a nuclear armed Iran is preposterous. It is also a classic strawman argument where you claim your opponent wants to acheive Goal B, and then you go on to explain how horrible acheiving Goal B would be to the ordinary public.

No rational American, regardless of their political outlook, wants Iran to have nuclear arms. We differ on the best solutions to prevent this, and some of us feel that real diplomacy is a better starting point than "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

As for Hillary Clinton refusing to share a stage with Ms. Palin, she is well within her rights not to do anything that could possibility be construed of an endorsement of Palin. Let Palin find someone else;s coattails to ride upon.

She and the absurd right should stop trying to twist Ms. Clinton's refusal to pevert this event into support of the GOP. Ms. Palin should instead be bringing her own message to the people by submitting to real intereviews.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Paranoids try to infect others with their disease in forums and wherever else they can. It helps them to feel important instead of little.

i agree, and IF Iran does devlop a nuke, we have only ourselves to blame, with our chest-beating, do as we say, not as we do metality.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't see it as you do. I don't see much of a realistic way the west can prevent Iran from getting nukes without the cost being perhaps higher than them having nukes. Since I am a basic student of psychology, as all people with half a brain should be, I know, too, that a nuclear Iran is not going to start sending missiles into the sky just for fun. They are a defensive measure for that country, not offensive, just as they were defensive when France got them, India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea--in fact, every country except for the first that ever got them and has since used them only as a deterrent.

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

A fool doesn't see irony. You lament partisanship and come out throwing punches on the left. What does that make you? You in theory represent the party that pushed for an attack on Iraq over WMD which it never had, so please have a little sense of history if you're going to engage in a meaningful discussion of this.