Bow Down Before Iran?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-14 09:18:56

That is if we actually gave a damn about the Iraqis, if they hate us for helping them and they can't learn to appreciate that help, I sure don't want to help them anyway. The US does alot of good things around the World, in Indonesia for example after the tidal wave, if they can't learn to appriate our efforts and sacrifice for them, then we should stop helping them.
A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
The point of the whole exercise and why we are bothering is to enhance our security, if we reward our enemies while trying to help the Iraqis, we are losing site of our original goal of enhancing our security.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
If the US assault on Iraq was wonderfully prepared and carryed out, the Iraq occupation gestion has been catastrophically unpreapared by stupid ideological daydreamers which didn't new anything about Iraq and the Iraqis.
That started with the destruction of all kind of an administrative insfrastructure in Iraq, hunting Baasiths, letting no police nor army forces to stop all administrative buildings, schools, universities, hospitals and museums looting and plundering.
Turning the baathist Sunnis into ennemies instead of offering them cashed collaboration was the main tragical mistake.
Many would have followed the winning camp instead of a hounded leader obliged to hide like a rat. In a party like Baath, like in all parties in the world, there are numbers 2, 3, 4 and so on which want to be the new number one. It would have been much more productive to keep the former baathist administration, then oblige it to share power with the Shias and the Kurds.
Now, the Iraqi police and army are Shias and Kurds militias infiltrated, they also commit terrorist attacks at the Sunnis as well as Sunnis and foreign terrorists commit terrorist attacks, and that's three years of a fueled by "good intentions" rising civil war in Iraq.
It's no use roaring, you'd better think about the way to make less ennemies and more allies

We were sort of responding to the criticism of us in employing NAZIs to run the German post World War II government during allied occupation. In Iraq, we've listend to those critics and decided for a clean sweep, that way we'd have no one with blood on their hands running the government. Too many Germans who murdered innocent Jews and conducted experiments, were still employed by the Allied Occupation Government in Germany, we decided to avoid compromises with evil, and if more people suffer for our refusal to deal with the Devil, tough! If we are to have a War on Terrorism, we assuredly cannot enlist the help of the terrorists themselves, and thats who the Syrian and Iranian governments are. In fact recently the Iranian government put its own candidate to head the Al Qaeda organization, the very same one which attacked us on 9/11, if that does not put Iran squarely in the camp of the Enemy, then I don't know what does. If Iran is involved in Al Qaeda, then it is our enemy just as assuridly as Al Qaeda is, and for the first time we can go to war against another state. We must prevent them from getting nuclear weapons in any case, and even if we do, we must take the consequences and take them out! Best get them before they have nukes. If Congress won't allow us a sustained operation, then a quick and dirty operation to destroy their government will have to suffice.

DonPanic · 2006-11-14 17:24:52

Best get them before they have nukes. If Congress won't allow us a sustained operation, then a quick and dirty operation to destroy their government will have to suffice.

That won't do anything, you can kill all of the iranian civil authorities, the real power is in the mosques, Ahmadinejad is just a mollahs' puppet.
The Iranians can hide ultracentrifugers in any suburb basement, you can't find them just by satellite spying, so you will have to invade Iran by earth to search on the ground, and you don't have enough military means unless you mobilise one million men to invade and control a 70 millions inhabitants country large a 3 Texas, when security isn't even assumed for your troops in Iraq.

That's just your brutal and idle terrorism fueling yakety-yak, as usual

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-15 08:40:39

Best get them before they have nukes. If Congress won't allow us a sustained operation, then a quick and dirty operation to destroy their government will have to suffice.
That won't do anything, you can kill all of the iranian civil authorities, the real power is in the mosques, Ahmadinejad is just a mollahs' puppet.
The Iranians can hide ultracentrifugers in any suburb basement, you can't find them just by satellite spying, so you will have to invade Iran by earth to search on the ground, and you don't have enough military means unless you mobilise one million men to invade and control a 70 millions inhabitants country large a 3 Texas, when security isn't even assumed for your troops in Iraq.
That's just your brutal and idle terrorism fueling yakety-yak, as usual

The United States has a population of 300 million people, I'm sure it can mobilize an army large enough to get the job done. The only question is whether the Democratic Congress and Senate will let us save our cities from Iranian nuclear attack. If they are so concerned about military casualities that they won't let us save our civilian population, that is just stupid. Iran has said time and time again that their goal is the destruction of the United States and Israel. I'll tell you one thing, I'm going to try to stay away from New York City for the next few years. While Congress fiddles, Iran is building nuclear bombs.

DonPanic · 2006-11-15 09:09:14

The United States has a population of 300 million people, I'm sure it can mobilize an army large enough to get the job done. The only question is whether the Democratic Congress and Senate will let us save our cities from Iranian nuclear attack.

Job's not even done in Iraq.
Iran isn't up to get an ICBM, and miniaturize a nuclear bomb isn't that easy.
Iran just may threaten Israel, but Israel has nukes and nuclear deterrence.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-15 09:21:19

The United States has a population of 300 million people, I'm sure it can mobilize an army large enough to get the job done. The only question is whether the Democratic Congress and Senate will let us save our cities from Iranian nuclear attack.
Job's not even done in Iraq.
Iran isn't up to get an ICBM, and miniaturize a nuclear bomb isn't that easy.
Iran just may threaten Israel, but Israel has nukes and nuclear deterrence.

Deterrence is not worth much against a religious fanatic with a nuclear bomb. Do you think the Iranians don't realize that the US has thousands of nuclear missiles capable of reaching their country? When you have a fanatic with trying to get nuclear weapons, you have two choices, stop him, or murder him before he has a chance to launch them. If you let the fanatic have nukes, hes just going to build enough of them to cause significant damage and then he'll launch them. I don't trust the Iranians to have enough humanity to be deterred, I've seen too many terrorists blow themselves up, and Tehran is "terror central", their revolution was born of terrorism against Americans, they are a creature of terrorism.

DonPanic · 2006-11-15 11:05:04

Deterrence is not worth much against a religious fanatic with a nuclear bomb. Do you think the Iranians don't realize that the US has thousands of nuclear missiles capable of reaching their country?

Yes, everybody is aware that USA have nukes and used two of them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

When you have a fanatic with trying to get nuclear weapons, you have two choices, stop him, or murder him before he has a chance to launch them. If you let the fanatic have nukes, hes just going to build enough of them to cause significant damage and then he'll launch them. I don't trust the Iranians to have enough humanity to be deterred, I've seen too many terrorists blow themselves up, and Tehran is "terror central", their revolution was born of terrorism against Americans, they are a creature of terrorism.

The iranian revolution was against the Shah, the US embassy hostage affair happened when the country was a whole mess.
So, if you think that all Iranians are mad enough to dare threaten USA with nukes, that's racism.
They have a president which screams, that's only a matter of regional dominancy and prestige among the muslim world, and a way to rally public iranian opinion which, otherwise, would oppose mollarchy for more democracy and would complain about economics, but sure the ayatollahs wouldn't let this civilian any power to press the nuclear button.
It's a little more complex than you say, claiming that someone is enraged, since both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, they don't dare going at war directly at each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-15 12:51:44

Deterrence is not worth much against a religious fanatic with a nuclear bomb. Do you think the Iranians don't realize that the US has thousands of nuclear missiles capable of reaching their country?
Yes, everybody is aware that USA have nukes and used two of them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

When you start a total war against your enemy and you lose, you lose big. The Japanese were quite fanatical too, and they were probably our first experience with this Eastern style of suicide fanatacism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also give me hope that we can win this war on terrorism. I truly hope that another "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" aren't necessary to stop the Iranians from aquiring nuclear weapons, I don't want to lose a US city before we do something about Iran either, and I don't want them dictating terms our our surrender. The best thing to do on purely human terms is to invade and overthrow the Iranian government. The Democrats are too afraid of the present cost ih human terms to avoid a greater cost in the future, so I'm afraid it may come to nuclear war if we want to save our soldier's lives now by not invading. Are we prepared to lose millions of lives in the future and whole cities because we didn't stop Iran when it was still cheap to do so?

What is worse, losing 10,000 soldiers lives over 10 years or 30 million in a single day? I think a small nuclear war with Iran might kill 30 million Americans, assuming the Iranians had a dozen nukes or so.

When you have a fanatic with trying to get nuclear weapons, you have two choices, stop him, or murder him before he has a chance to launch them. If you let the fanatic have nukes, hes just going to build enough of them to cause significant damage and then he'll launch them. I don't trust the Iranians to have enough humanity to be deterred, I've seen too many terrorists blow themselves up, and Tehran is "terror central", their revolution was born of terrorism against Americans, they are a creature of terrorism.
The iranian revolution was against the Shah, the US embassy hostage affair happened when the country was a whole mess.
So, if you think that all Iranians are mad enough to dare threaten USA with nukes, that's racism.

All Iranians don't have to be mad enough, just like all Germans don't have to be mad enough to start World War II, it is their leader who decides to push the button. There are Iranians trained to commit suicide upon the command of the Iranian leader. I find that people who are willing to kill themselves are also quite willing to commit mass murder besides. Is it racism? I don't know. I do know that we've had alot of bad experiences with the Iranians since their Islamic revolution, I don't have much faith in either their rationality or in their good behavior, and look at the trouble were having in Iraq with Muslims who blow themselves up killing other people. The very same argument you use that we should get out of Iraq is the same argument I use that we should not let the Iranians have nuclear weapons no matter what, and if they do get nuclear weapons, we should stop them no matter what the cost and prevent them from building more so they can do more damage to us. If its a nuclear war, then its better fought sooner when we can win at the loss of only a few cities, than later where it will involve our total destruction. I have no faith that Iranians can be deterred, and this is due to their history of fanatacism. Suicide bombing is all too common, and we can't pretend its not happening or that their leaders are somehow rational when many of their followers are not.

Besides, our nuclear weapons have not deterred them from making terrorist attacks against us. Each time they make an attack, they want to push just a little bit further and they get just a little bit braver with each attack that succeeds and that we don't respond to.

They have a president which screams, that's only a matter of regional dominancy and prestige among the muslim world, and a way to rally public iranian opinion which, otherwise, would oppose mollarchy for more democracy and would complain about economics, but sure the ayatollahs wouldn't let this civilian any power to press the nuclear button.
It's a little more complex than you say, claiming that someone is enraged, since both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, they don't dare going at war directly at each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

Pakistan is ruled by a rational leader, he is not a religious fanatic, his main interest is asserting power and controlling his country, he realizes that the USA is the Superpower and if push comes to shove, it will prevail over the terrorists, and he wants to be on the right side when it happens. The Pakistani populace is more emotional and less rational, they may push Mushariff aside and replace him with a religious fanatic who's more willing to push the button.
You assume alot about the ayatollah's, you assume firstly that they are faking their religion and all their pretentions to religious faith is all an act for the benefit of the masses, but what if they assume that God is really on their side and that the USA's nuclear deterrent does not matter? They may launch their missiles and count on Allah to stop our retaliation, it may not be true, but if they believe that they may press the button. Your quite willing to find out by letting the Iranians have nukes knowing that if your wrong, only Americans and Iranians will pay for it.

DonPanic · 2006-11-15 14:41:38

Pakistan is ruled by a rational leader, he is not a religious fanatic, his main interest is asserting power and controlling his country (...)

So was the Iran's Shah, he was ousted by a supported by the clerics popular revolt, I wouldn't rely as you do on the strenght of an unpopular leader if his army gets infiltrated by islamic extremists, so what if fanatics takes the power in Karachi ?

The best thing to do on purely human terms is to invade and overthrow the Iranian government. The Democrats are too afraid of the present cost ih human terms to avoid a greater cost in the future, so I'm afraid it may come to nuclear war if we want to save our soldier's lives now by not invading.

Best thing to do is to insure Iranian friendship, maybe next time there will be an earthquake or something like that, if an Iranian should read what you say, he would more eagerly again want nukes to defend his country from you warmonging.
In this way, your call on attacking Iran isn't as different as a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel or USA, I see some of a symetric attitude

What is worse, losing 10,000 soldiers lives over 10 years or 30 million in a single day?

The answer is up to who will be soldiers, their parents and relatives, saloon strategists love to play with human lives as if they were just jacks on the chessboard

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-16 03:47:20

Pakistan is ruled by a rational leader, he is not a religious fanatic, his main interest is asserting power and controlling his country (...)
So was the Iran's Shah, he was ousted by a supported by the clerics popular revolt, I wouldn't rely as you do on the strenght of an unpopular leader if his army gets infiltrated by islamic extremists, so what if fanatics takes the power in Karachi ?

Millions die as they pass out nukes to terrorists!

The best thing to do on purely human terms is to invade and overthrow the Iranian government. The Democrats are too afraid of the present cost ih human terms to avoid a greater cost in the future, so I'm afraid it may come to nuclear war if we want to save our soldier's lives now by not invading.
Best thing to do is to insure Iranian friendship, maybe next time there will be an earthquake or something like that, if an Iranian should read what you say, he would more eagerly again want nukes to defend his country from you warmonging.
In this way, your call on attacking Iran isn't as different as a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call to destroy Israel or USA, I see some of a symetric attitude.

I see you haven't heard a darn thing I've been saying! Iran's a threat, its been saying, "Death to America!" ever since the Iranian Revolution. Add nukes to the mix and a touch of religious fanatacism, and we just can't trust Iran not to use nukes. Radical Islam has been a fountain of suicide bombers lately. We just can't let any fanatical Islamic state have nukes, we can't afford it, millions may die, and we can't take the risk that they won't be deterred. For our own survival, we can't accept it.

What is worse, losing 10,000 soldiers lives over 10 years or 30 million in a single day?
The answer is up to who will be soldiers, their parents and relatives, saloon strategists love to play with human lives as if they were just jacks on the chessboard

So you say the soldiers should save themselves and later on watch their families die as the nukes they could have prevented Iran from getting are used on them. You have such a heroic notion of what the job of soldiers is supposed to be, such as hiding behind lady's skirts. Hey the Palestinians do it, that is the essence of terrorism and insurgency, hiding behind lady's skirts and hoping that the enemy has a heart so that they don't kill them while they are killing you. You French people are such Romantics. Sir Lancecelot hiding behind Lady Gwenevere as he cowers before the bad old Black Knight. I heard the French invented Chivalry, and now it appears they turned it insideout.

DonPanic · 2006-11-16 04:50:30

I see you haven't heard a darn thing I've been saying! Iran's a threat, its been saying, "Death to America!" ever since the Iranian Revolution.

Every day, there's a lot of peoples which scream "death to America" then go home without thinking to do any harm to US citizens, that's some kind of imaginary protest against US government.
Even US american guys blasted government buildings, as in Oklahoma City, there is no islamic monopoly on terrorism, the IRA blew bombs in UK, ETA in Spain, killing innocent peoples.

The answer is up to who will be soldiers, their parents and relatives, saloon strategists love to play with human lives as if they were just jacks on the chessboard
So you say the soldiers should save themselves and later on watch their families die as the nukes they could have prevented Iran from getting are used on them. You have such a heroic notion of what the job of soldiers is supposed to be, such as hiding behind lady's skirts.

No, I'm saying that war hasn't to be decided by saloon strategists as you are now or as a Rumsfeld was !
Iranian authorities will not give any nuke to uncontrolled terrorists, and they now that terrorists always run out of control.
USA gave weapons to the Talebans to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, they ran out of control with the results you know.

Ask the Algerian people, I don't think that they'll tell you that the independence war in Algeria was romantic. French troopers used torture and morally lost that war even if they "technically" won it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-16 10:52:21

I see you haven't heard a darn thing I've been saying! Iran's a threat, its been saying, "Death to America!" ever since the Iranian Revolution.
Every day, there's a lot of peoples which scream "death to America" then go home without thinking to do any harm to US citizens, that's some kind of imaginary protest against US government.

Do they?
Everyone thought Hitler was full of it when he called for Death to the Jews, no one paid any attention to him. He wouldn't kill Jews, they reasoned, he needed Jews to be around to blame as scapegoats when thigs went wrong for him, he'd keep them around, he wouldn't carry out his threat. All that Nazi propaganda against Jews was just so much empty rheteric. blah blah blah. No one actually thought Hitler Meant what he said, despite the fact that he wrote this book, despite all the speeches he made, the common level headed assumption made by most people before it happened was that he wouldn't do it. That people don't actually mean what they say. What proof do you have that the Iranian leader doesn't actually mean what he says. Maybe I would perhaps be inclided to agree with you if he wasn't also trying to get nuclear weapons. Maybe if Iran really was worried about a US invasion, it would stop trying to provoke one with its rheteric and it's "Death to America!" chant. Twenty-seven years of their self-generated antagonism toward us has not enhanced their security. They keep goading us and trying to build nuclear weapons, how stupid would we be if we do not take them at their word about what they intend to do, and we let them aquire nuclear weapons and this results in the deaths of millions of Americans, Israelis, and likely Iranians too. Iran wouldn't be the first nation to have committed suicide.

Even US american guys blasted government buildings, as in Oklahoma City, there is no islamic monopoly on terrorism, the IRA blew bombs in UK, ETA in Spain, killing innocent peoples.

A pretty feeble strawman argument you have erected there. A lone nut and Islamic terrorist organizations do not compare. Nowhere has suicide terrorism been so prevalent as in the Middle East, that I have to tell you this only says that you refuse to see the argument and will not see any evidence that leads to conclusions contrary to your own. You rationalize, the Jews aren't really people, they are occupiers of colonists instead, and that the Palestinians are really killing and murdering innocent people, but "Resisting" them. So long as Jews remain faceless bogeymen called occupiers then its ok to kill them.

The answer is up to who will be soldiers, their parents and relatives, saloon strategists love to play with human lives as if they were just jacks on the chessboard
So you say the soldiers should save themselves and later on watch their families die as the nukes they could have prevented Iran from getting are used on them. You have such a heroic notion of what the job of soldiers is supposed to be, such as hiding behind lady's skirts.
No, I'm saying that war hasn't to be decided by saloon strategists as you are now or as a Rumsfeld was !
Iranian authorities will not give any nuke to uncontrolled terrorists, and they now that terrorists always run out of control.

How do you know. Terrorists wouldn't drive cars packed full of explosives and blow themselves up either, that is not a rational assumption either. Terrorists would not fly airplanes into buildings because they would get killed, yet another rational assuption about the motivations of these people. The reason that the 9/11 attack happened is because we made rational assuptions about our enemy and didn't prepare for the possibility that our enemy was going to be irrational. Prior to 9/11 alot of our preparations against terrorist attacks was based on the rational belief that terrorists didn't want to kill themselves, they wanted to plant a bomb and run away, but they didn't want to kill themselves. That was why there was so much effort to match luggage to passengers. You are trying to make rational assuptioms about the Iranian leadership, as if somehow they don't follow the same rules as the people they send on those suicide missions. I've seen no evidence that they are somehow different from the suicide bombers they send to kill us. Hitler shot himself of course, and if Hitler can commit suicide, don't you think the Iranian leadership can as well and that their whole country with them in the process? People who are willing to kill themselves are often quite willing to kill others as well.

USA gave weapons to the Talebans to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, they ran out of control with the results you know.

Muslim irrationality will only hurt themselves in the long run, they can only fool us so much and at some point we will stop buying all the liberal excuses that are made on their behalf. It does not serve the stated goals of liberalism to have the Islamic terrorists win, no matter how much they may hate America, they enemy of their enemy is not their ally.

Ask the Algerian people, I don't think that they'll tell you that the independence war in Algeria was romantic. French troopers used torture and morally lost that war even if they "technically" won it.

If they won it, Algeria would still be part of the French Empire. The war was undermined from within the French Society just like the Vietnam War was undermined by traitors in American society. The traitors are at it again trying to undermine our fight against terrorists, trying to portray the terrorists as the good guys in this conflict, or at least paint ourselves as equivalent to them if they cannot achieve the former. Stop trying to reach out to them and understand them, when all they want to do is destroy your society. Don't feel too guilty about being French, about being Christian or about being Western Europeans, you should stop having to appologize to them for being yourselves and not bowing down to Mecca and praying 5 times a day.

DonPanic · 2006-11-16 11:42:39

If they won it, Algeria would still be part of the French Empire. The war was undermined from within the French Society just like the Vietnam War was undermined by traitors in American society.

No, sir, De Gaulle was warned that if France was to keep Algeria as a part of France, with the algerian birth rate, France would have become algerian quite soon, therefore demographic studies convinced De Gaulle that it was much better to "give" independence to Algeria and quit it. No traitors in this case, and you see right now that USA hasn't real troubles with a communist Viet Nam which only desire is to grow its economy.

How do you know. Terrorists wouldn't drive cars packed full of explosives and blow themselves up either, that is not a rational assumption either. Terrorists would not fly airplanes into buildings because they would get killed, yet another rational assuption about the motivations of these people.

I've already told you that Paris has been the first city targeted by algerian suicide terrorists, they were defeated by police antiterrorist units.

You can't keep like a parrot saying that the government in charge of Iran is a bunch of terrorists, that's pure paranoia of yours, mixing and confusing it with terrorists is a mistake, that doesn't work.
Today, US authorities call the iranian government for a help to secure the iranian fronteer from terrorists infiltration, Iranians are not stupid, they know that their oil fields will have an end within 15 years, then they'll need nuclear power plants.
Like North Korea which want economic help, their attitude is chantage to extort financial help them to build nuclear power plants.
Doing this show they want peace, when a country has nuclear power plants, it becomes vulnerable to the power plants bombing.

You'd better open your eyes instead of seeing only war and devastation, and look at what's rationnal in your so-called ennemies' behaviour.

Don't be a parrot, be intelligent, please !

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-16 11:56:26

If they won it, Algeria would still be part of the French Empire. The war was undermined from within the French Society just like the Vietnam War was undermined by traitors in American society.
No, sir, De Gaulle was warned that if France was to keep Algeria as a part of France, with the algerian birth rate, France would have become algerian quite soon, therefore demographic studies convinced De Gaulle that it was much better to "give" independence to Algeria and quit it. No traitors in this case, and you see right now that USA hasn't real troubles with a communist Viet Nam which only desire is to grow its economy.

How do you know. Terrorists wouldn't drive cars packed full of explosives and blow themselves up either, that is not a rational assumption either. Terrorists would not fly airplanes into buildings because they would get killed, yet another rational assuption about the motivations of these people.
I've already told you that Paris has been the first city targeted by algerian suicide terrorists, they were defeated by police antiterrorist units.
You can't keep like a parrot saying that the government in charge of Iran is a bunch of terrorists, that's pure paranoia of yours, mixing and confusing it with terrorists is a mistake, that doesn't work.
Today, US autorities call the iranian government for a help to secure the iranian fronteer from terrorists infiltration, Iranians are not stupid, they know that their oil fiels will have an end within 20 years, then they need nuclear power plants.

Solar power would work very well in the Middle East, but you don't see them trying to build solar power plants with the same gusto because you can't make bombs with them. For the amount of effort they are going through to defy the World community to build centefuges and process Uranium and Plutonium, they could have build a very decent sized Solar Power plant that could have powered many homes, if you add up the cost of their military build up and the economic sanctions they risk, they could build a very big Solar Power plant in deed, the Middle East is also a very dry place with lots of sunshine, it is a very good place to generate electricity from the Sun. Yet Iran risks going to war while trying to process its own Uranium fuel for "generate electricity," Why?

Like North Korea which want economic help, their attitude is challege to extort financial help them to build nuclear power plants. Doing this show they want peace, when a country has nuclear power plants, it becomes vulnerable to the power plants bombing.

If they wanted our help they could have asked for it, threatening us, does not make us more likely to want to help. There is a saying, "Millions for Defense of the homeland, and not a penny in tribute." We are willing to spend much more to defend ourselves from the North Koreans than we are to pay them off to go away, in other words tribute.

You'd better open your eyes instead of seeing only war and devastation, and see what's rationnal in your so-called ennemies' behaviour.
Don't be a parrot, be intelligent, please !

If they support terrorists, then they are terrorists, it is as simple as that. You don't have to be the guy pulling the trigger and shooting at innocent civilians to be a terrorist.

You know you are a propagandist, you seem much more interested in generating propaganda for the Iranians and their actions than in doing anything that would benefit our side.

DonPanic · 2006-11-16 13:18:17

Solar power would work very well in the Middle East, but you don't see them trying to build solar power plants with the same gusto because you can't make bombs with them.

There is nothing to see between the power relased by a nuclear poxer plant ans solar power plants. You are not informed for the same amount of energy, solar is much more expensive. Iran isn't covered with deserts, it's not Saudia.

If they wanted our help they could have asked for it, threatening us, does not make us more likely to want to help.

?No; peoples like you listed Iran among the axis of evil and treated Iranians as ennemies; just as you do.

If they support terrorists, then they are terrorists, it is as simple as that.

Simplist ideas are the contrary of intelligence, I guess complex situations is out of reach of few neurons.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 … board.html

You know you are a propagandist, you seem much more interested in generating propaganda for the Iranians and their actions than in doing anything that would benefit our side.

The best way to benefit "your side" is to be realistic instead of remaining such ideologic as you are, when you attack so-called liberals or leftwing, just forgetting these liberals and left wings are your home citizens and allies.
The only thing that matters for me is efficiency, up to now, you're only speaking about striking ennemies, the other way is to reduce tensions, that costs much less energy, men lives and money, thats what your fellow citizens voted for.
If you understand this, then French and Europeans will have no other choice than to help USA and send troops in Iraq.
You can win all the wars you want within two weeks, that's useless if you're not abble to win peace after three years of a bloody mess.
You're supposed to win hearts and minds, all you say is just shanky.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-16 18:52:04

Solar power would work very well in the Middle East, but you don't see them trying to build solar power plants with the same gusto because you can't make bombs with them.
There is nothing to see between the power relased by a nuclear poxer plant ans solar power plants. You are not informed for the same amount of energy, solar is much more expensive. Iran isn't covered with deserts, it's not Saudia.

Still it is not a gloomy place! it is probably cheapest of all for them to burn natural gas from their oil wells and generate electricity from that. Nuclear is not cheap, especially if they plan to process their own fuel, and defy the world and enhure sanctions, and to invest in their military and be wary of the United States. if Iran wasn't so paranoid, it could takes all these expenditures from their oil revenue and build a nice great big solar panel array, and they could put wind turbines in between. All this is expensive no doubt, but so is defying the world, enduring economic sanctions, selling their oil for less because the United States won't buy any, all these costs add up. it would be cheaper for them to be supplied fuel from an outside provider rather than make it themselves, but duh, Iran wants to defy the World cause it makes them feel good. Solar Panels don't threaten anybody, and consequently Iran doesn't have to worry about one of the Major Superpowers invading them if they went for Solar, and thus Solar would be cheaper for them than going nuclear. You have to internalize all the costs that would go with them building nuclear planst and processing fuel for them. If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would still cause trouble for the world and that would push us closer to nuclear war. If the Soviets were attacking us like that, that would have put us dangerously close to World War III. I think World War III is just an abstract notion for them, they just make threats and they expect to get results, they don't see how dangerous things could become for them if they go that route.

DonPanic wrote:

If they wanted our help they could have asked for it, threatening us, does not make us more likely to want to help.

?No; peoples like you listed Iran among the axis of evil and treated Iranians as ennemies; just as you do.
"Death to America!" "America is the Great Satan", and their holding US hostages? They started it! It is up to them to make peace with us, and they haven't tried very hard.

If they support terrorists, then they are terrorists, it is as simple as that.
Simplist ideas are the contrary of intelligence, I guess complex situations is out of reach of few neurons.

Many people make a mountain out of a mole hill, they over analyze every situation and they make it out to be so complex that the problem cannot be solved. Jimmy Carter did that. Old One-Term Jimmy Carter who was so popular with the French and the Western Europeans when he was out of office, now why doesn't George Bush follow Jimmy's example? Because he was a one-term President and a failure, that's why!

Humans are complex and they can react in many unanticipated and complex ways. Anticipating their reaction to any given stimuli is very difficult. I prefer to put the ball squarely in the other country's court, and say, "We don't know how to manipulate your public opinions and how to prevent yuou from going beserk and nuts from every little nose scratch we make, but if you go crazy and attack us for no rational reason, we will make you sorry not matter what the complex multidimentionsal, psychohistorical, sociological cause that we didn't anticipate may be. It is your responsibility to behave. If we have to solve a world trouble spot toenhance our security, we do so in the most direct and simplest way possible, in other words KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Complex solutions are more likely to go wrong because their is more complexity in the details that can go wrong, the simplest solution is usually the best one. If our implementation of the simple solution drives you nutbags, and your media drives you into a crazy attack frenzy to attack us, you'd better watch out, because we are quite capable of defending ourselves and we may cause harm to you in the process, so stay out of our way please!"

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 … board.html
You know you are a propagandist, you seem much more interested in generating propaganda for the Iranians and their actions than in doing anything that would benefit our side.
The best way to benefit "your side" is to be realistic instead of remaining such ideologic as you are, when you attack so-called liberals or leftwing, just forgetting these liberals and left wings are your home citizens and allies.

Some are and some aren't. Some left wingers are in the habit of blaming the USA for every thing that goes wrong with the world. When ever there's a terrorist attack on us, they first blame the US government reflexively and wonder who we made mad to make that attack as if the attack was justified.

Let me just ask you, if you got home and found it to be burgalarized, are you going to wonder who you made mad to cause him to steal your things? I think it is the value of the things stolen that are the motivation for the theft not anything you might have done.

The only thing that matters for me is efficiency, up to now, you're only speaking about striking ennemies, the other way is to reduce tensions, that costs much less energy, men lives and money, thats what your fellow citizens voted for.

How did the French reduce tensions with the Germans prior to World War II?

If you understand this, then French and Europeans will have no other choice than to help USA and send troops in Iraq.
You can win all the wars you want within two weeks, that's useless if you're not abble to win peace after three years of a bloody mess.
You're supposed to win hearts and minds, all you say is just shanky.

I think some liberals don't want us to win the peace because they opposed the War in the first place, cause it was a Republican thing and not their idea, and consequently they say to the terrorists, "just hold on there, were coming! We're going to make the USA pull out of your country so you can take over and overthrow democracy. Just keep on making attacks against US soldiers and we'll do our part along with our media friends to undermine public moral so we democrats can get elected and make the USA retreat. There is light at the end of the tunnel for you, just keep on attacking us, and we'll do the rest. we're making the World safe for fanatacism and dictatorship once agains as it should be."

DonPanic · 2006-11-17 04:56:59

They started it! It is up to them to make peace with us, and they haven't tried very hard.

Hey, weren't kids in a schoolyard, no matter who started, Iranians can always say that USA and GB started ousting Mossadegh democratic regime and set a pro west dictator for oil.
We are in 2006, your constant reference to Hitler is childish, there are no concentration camps in Iran, Iran has not territorial ambitions.

we have to stop fueling fires in middle east.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6153120.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6156024.stm

Still it is not a gloomy place! it is probably cheapest of all forthem to burn natural gas from their oil wells and generate electricity from that. Nuclear is not cheap, especially if they plan to process their own fuel, and defy the world and enhure sanctions, and to invest in their military and be wary of the United States. if Iran wasn't so paranoid, it could takes all these expenditures from their oil revenue and build a nice great big solar panel array,

I think that you are misinformed, to build a giant solar array up to produce the same electric supply as one nuclear reactor would absorb five times the yearly world solar panels production.
As for wind turbines, to generate the same electric power as a nuclear reactor, you need almost 2000 wind turbines with wind conditions over 5 yards a second to compete with a nuclear reactor, don't be daydreaming, US government doesn't push for nuclear power for fun.
If Iran complies to IAEA, there is no reason to be agressive at Iran
Teheran signed the non proliferation treaty.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna

Remember that the clerics detain the real power in Iran, Ahmadinejad is just a "democratic" puppet.

Intelligence analysts say Iran could be anywhere from three to nine years away from having the ability to build an atom bomb.

There is still time for negociations, Iran is just pushing as tough bargains as can be.
It's not because Israelis are hysterical about Iran and Iran hysterical about Israel that me must act the same way.
US and Euro politics aren't to be decided by Jerusalem.

Don't say that I'm advocacing the Iranians' right to have nuclear weapons, they have the right to have nuclear power plants if they comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency rules. There is no nuclear energy monopoly for develloped countries, and alternative energy sources for the poor countries.

Stormrage · 2006-11-17 13:25:59

Iran has every right to nuclear power. They have every right to get a nuclear weapon. Why shouldn't they? Just because Americans don't feel comfortable with them having nukes. After all who started all the trouble (Including Israel) in the middle east? Majority of them leads to America.

Please dont' compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Hitler was a brutal murder who first tried to get rid of the jews but when no one wanted them thought that he was given the silent yes to kill them all. Ahmadinejad HOWEVER. DOES NOT HATE JEWS. He hates Israel. There are 25,000 jews in Iran. They are proud to be jews and Iranians and they can make phone calls to Israel if they want. Why haven't they been murdered? Because they are protected. When a Newspaper made a fake article that said that Iranian jews were celebrating deaths of Muslims and showed a non related image jews celebrating their synagogue. The Police rushed to stopped angry crowds from destroying synagogues. They also get represented in the pariment. When Ahmadinejad made remarks about the Holocaust. Maurice Motamed the jewish mp sent an angry letter Ahmadinejad . Has far as i am aware he isn't dead yet. He has enough money to go to Israel if he wants but he doesn't.

So stop your bullshit Tom.

p.s. Do you think Iraqis support USA when American soldiers rape 14 year girls and murder their family? Or when contract soldiers are allowed to do what ever they want and they don't get checked. Before I heard about the rape charges. I wanted the occupation to end with has little blood has possible. But now i see i was foolish. The only way the American public and their government will listen and understand the hurt they cause to Iraqis is for American soldiers to die. So let them die. Even though most of them are just ordinary people who don't have a say if they want to go to War or not. After all 100,000-600,000 Iraqis who would have lived under saddam died.

DonPanic · 2006-11-17 17:08:06

Iran has every right to nuclear power. They have every right to get a nuclear weapon. Why shouldn't they?

Because Iran signed the non proliferation treaty, and signing treaties engage the country which sign to respect them, unless the country has no more international credibility.

Countries are noted by banks, when they have poor credibility, they pay higher loan interest rates than countries with high credibility if they need money http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7161.html
Countries which do not respect signed treaties are supposed to be respectless of contracts.

Stormrage · 2006-11-18 10:03:06

Iran has every right to nuclear power. They have every right to get a nuclear weapon. Why shouldn't they?
Because Iran signed the non proliferation treaty, and signing treaties engage the country which sign to respect them, unless the country has no more international credibility.
Countries are noted by banks, when they have poor credibility, they pay higher loan interest rates than countries with high credibility if they need money http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7161.html
Countries which do not respect signed treaties are supposed to be respectless of contracts.

The NPT also calls for Nuclear disarmament. South Africa and Libya have done so. If the nuclear powers are failing to hold up to their part. Why don't they stick the treaty up their ass? Oh i forgot. Anyone remotely Anti USA is pure evil and will ony use the technology for harm. I am glad that Iran is standing up to USA and to ( i write this ashamed at Tony Blair) it's loyal dog UK. If Ahmadinejad didn't stand up then USA would treat Iran differently. When Khatami listend to the americans. All he got treated with anger. When Ahmadinejad restarted the uraninum enrichment he got treated angry and a lot of empty threats came his way. BUT. USA offered the first diplomatic meeting for 20+ years. Now thats what i call backing down. USA doesn't have an option here. They can't attack Iran because the Nuclear facilities have been spread around the country (a lesson learnt from Israel attacking Iraq) and American troops and Israel would be vulnerable to attack. Also they can't sanction Iran because Iran has had a US sanction for years. It won't hurt them if USA tries to use the security council because Russia and China support Iran.

Must be bad to be Bush.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-18 10:24:34

They started it! It is up to them to make peace with us, and they haven't tried very hard.
Hey, weren't kids in a schoolyard, no matter who started, Iranians can always say that USA and GB started ousting Mossadegh democratic regime and set a pro west dictator for oil.

It was a pro Soviet Socialist, just like Chavez, they were all set to overthrow democracy just like Hitler did, through legislative means. We were just guarding our interests knowing that Democracy was doomed their anyway, besides you say they weren't ready for democracy, we just made sure that whatever ubndemocratic government ended up their was on our side of the Cold War. Jimmy Carter just didn't understand this and let things fall apart.

We are in 2006, your constant reference to Hitler is childish, there are no concentration camps in Iran, Iran has not territorial ambitions.

Hitler is a good example because you won't believe any left wing examples I give. Because of your political leanings, you will only believe that white people who dress as Nazis and are racists can be bad, if it is anyone other than white people doing these things, and some of their victims are white people, you are going to find excuses for them, just as you have for the Palestinians attacks on Israeli Jews, who are mostly white people by the way.

we have to stop fueling fires in middle east.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6153120.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6156024.stm
Still it is not a gloomy place! it is probably cheapest of all forthem to burn natural gas from their oil wells and generate electricity from that. Nuclear is not cheap, especially if they plan to process their own fuel, and defy the world and enhure sanctions, and to invest in their military and be wary of the United States. if Iran wasn't so paranoid, it could takes all these expenditures from their oil revenue and build a nice great big solar panel array,
I think that you are misinformed, to build a giant solar array up to produce the same electric supply as one nuclear reactor would absorb five times the yearly world solar panels production.

The the production capacity of solar panels will expand, because the people making solar panels will want to makes as much money as possible, and they will expand their production capacity. the only reason Nuclear Power has alure for the Iranians is that it provides a suitable lie and cover for them while they seek to build nuclear bombs. you bought the Old North Korean lie too, right up until the end when they admitted they were actually building nuclear war heads. the main flaw of solar energy is you can't make bombs out of them. Nuclear fuel is also not a renewable resource just like the fossil fuel they sell. Nuclear reactors also produce their own pollution in the form of radioactive waste. The Sun will last longer that Earth's entire supply of uranium.

As for wind turbines, to generate the same electric power as a nuclear reactor, you need almost 2000 wind turbines with wind conditions over 5 yards a second to compete with a nuclear reactor, don't be daydreaming, US government doesn't push for nuclear power for fun.
If Iran complies to IAEA, there is no reason to be agressive at Iran
Teheran signed the non proliferation treaty.

How about we launch a nuclear Orion spaceship over your house,how would you like that?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna
Remember that the clerics detain the real power in Iran, Ahmadinejad is just a "democratic" puppet.

and Clerics are human and just as capable of lying as everyone else.

Intelligence analysts say Iran could be anywhere from three to nine years away from having the ability to build an atom bomb.
There is still time for negociations, Iran is just pushing as tough bargains as can be.

There is nothing to negotiate, Iran must stop, and if it doesn't their must be consequences. I notice you are always taking the side of our enemy no matter who it might be, whether communists, Islamic fanatics, tribal chieftains, what have you, if it goes against America, you all for it. and that is why I have so much trouble agreeing with you, for I was born in america, and I always hear you criticising my country. You don't hear me criticising France nearly as much. I have nothing against France trying to help themselves or to protect its citizens, or improve itself economically, but when people like you always compalin abut my country and take the side of its enemy, I have trouble getting along. You have called me a racist for loving my own country and not hating it. I understand your patriotism, why can't you understand mine?

It's not because Israelis are hysterical about Iran and Iran hysterical about Israel that me must act the same way.
US and Euro politics aren't to be decided by Jerusalem.
Don't say that I'm advocacing the Iranians' right to have nuclear weapons, they have the right to have nuclear power plants if they comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency rules. There is no nuclear energy monopoly for develloped countries, and alternative energy sources for the poor countries.

They do not comply with international rules. Although the UN is now trying to say that they are special and that the rules don't apply to them so long as they act against America's interests.

DonPanic · 2006-11-18 18:59:23

It was a pro Soviet Socialist, they were all set to overthrow democracy just like Hitler did

This is political fiction, not facts

We are in 2006, your constant reference to Hitler is childish, there are no concentration camps in Iran, Iran has not territorial ambitions.
Hitler is a good example because you won't believe any left wing examples I give.

Always hammering the same example don't give you more credibility

The the production capacity of solar panels will expand, because the people making solar panels will want to makes as much money as possible, and they will expand their production capacity. the only reason Nuclear Power has alure for the Iranians is that it provides a suitable lie and cover for them while they seek to build nuclear bombs. you bought the Old North Korean lie too, right up until the end when they admitted they were actually building nuclear war heads. the main flaw of solar energy is you can't make bombs out of them. Nuclear fuel is also not a renewable resource just like the fossil fuel they sell. Nuclear reactors also produce their own pollution in the form of radioactive waste. The Sun will last longer that Earth's entire supply of uranium.

That's why you have a hundred power plants...

How about we launch a nuclear Orion spaceship over your house,how would you like that?

Your most stupid argument! M.A.D. ! 192 nukes would be fired back on USA as a retaliation, and Ayatollahs aren't that stupid to provoque a nuke strike on Iran

Clerics are human and just as capable of lying as everyone else.

like a Bush still seaching WMD in Iraq and not finding any

There is nothing to negotiate, Iran must stop, and if it doesn't their must be consequences. I notice you are always taking the side of our enemy no matter who it might be, whether communists, Islamic fanatics, tribal chieftains, what have you, if it goes against America, you all for it. and that is why I have so much trouble agreeing with you, for I was born in america, and I always hear you criticising my country.

No, Im' criticizing you personnaly, maybe cons and evangelicals too, as having a paranoid view on the world and being unable to discriminate among middle east who is to fight and who is to negociate with, and this is very clumsy.
Out of these disputes, I feel as a world citizen, not so different form any average rather leftist and peaceful US citizen; I like US SF books, US music except for bluegrass, US movies, US scientific research, I was as horrified as you by the 9/11 attack

They do not comply with international rules. Although the UN is now trying to say that they are special and that the rules don't apply to them so long as they act against America's

You support Israel which sits upon international rules and when international rules are not in favour of USA, USA sits upon international rules, so ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-19 11:19:19

It was a pro Soviet Socialist, they were all set to overthrow democracy just like Hitler did
This is political fiction, not facts
We are in 2006, your constant reference to Hitler is childish, there are no concentration camps in Iran, Iran has not territorial ambitions.
Hitler is a good example because you won't believe any left wing examples I give.
Always hammering the same example don't give you more credibility
The the production capacity of solar panels will expand, because the people making solar panels will want to makes as much money as possible, and they will expand their production capacity. the only reason Nuclear Power has alure for the Iranians is that it provides a suitable lie and cover for them while they seek to build nuclear bombs. you bought the Old North Korean lie too, right up until the end when they admitted they were actually building nuclear war heads. the main flaw of solar energy is you can't make bombs out of them. Nuclear fuel is also not a renewable resource just like the fossil fuel they sell. Nuclear reactors also produce their own pollution in the form of radioactive waste. The Sun will last longer that Earth's entire supply of uranium.
That's why you have a hundred power plants...
How about we launch a nuclear Orion spaceship over your house,how would you like that?
Your most stupid argument! M.A.D. ! 192 nukes would be fired back on USA as a retaliation, and Ayatollahs aren't that stupid to provoque a nuke strike on Iran.

I don't know how stupid the Ayatollahs are, if they believe they have a hotline direct from God and that God is telling them to do all these things, then they are clearly not all that smart. It is sometimes just as dangerous to overestimate you enemies intelligence and not prepare for his stupidity as to underestimate them. Clearly there are many cases where you can argue that the enemy was being stupid, like that Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center for example, clearly no one would be that stupid and take on the worlds formost superpower, could they? Any smart terrorist would not make such a stupid attack on us and bring down our whole military potential right down on their heads. What did they think, that George Bush was a Jimmy Carter who wouldn't react to that?

Iran has no nuclear weapons, and even when it does it will only have a few, and then it thinks it can attack American citizens willy nilly and get no reaction from us? Sooner or later Iran will push us too far and we will react to their sorrow, they just keep on pushing the boundaries though, to see where they are perhaps, to see what they can get away with, I think that is very dangerous and stupid of them. They can't just nuke an American city and then claim that they really didn't mean it, but they are seeing how close they can actually come to hurting America and how far they can go before America reacts, its not like they haven't given us plenty of warning, "Death To America!" and all that, it is not like we are naive and don't know what they are all about, they are the sort of violent fanatical country that we would not like to see obtaining nuclear weapons, their very possession of such things is a mortal threat to us, considering all the stupid things they have done in the past, and I believe military action is justified to stop them, no matter what other side complications this may cause. Stopping them is certainly better than risking these violent fanatics possibly killing millions of Americans. That is the thing about fanatics, they often don't make sense and are unpredictable.

I believe nuclear power is dangerous because someone can make nuclear bombs out of the byproducts, and because our enemy suddenly wants nuclear power, your suddenly spouting all their virtues of nuclear power, how its the wave of the future and is going to solve all our energy needs with atomic powered cars, airplanes, and spaceships. Some country that gets its people to chant, "Death to America!" on a regular basis is not a country that I want to see developing nuclear power. I wish the George Bush government would take some concrete actions to stop Iran rather than just the placebo of talk and more talk. They'll talk themselves blue in the face, and when Iran gets nuclear weapons, they'll have an excuse and say they tried to do something, but it was to no avail. I consider talking to be not doing anything. What we should be doing is giving a warning that something bad will happen if they don't comply, and if they don't comply then letting something bad happen to them.

Clerics are human and just as capable of lying as everyone else.
like a Bush still seaching WMD in Iraq and not finding any

There is nothing to negotiate, Iran must stop, and if it doesn't their must be consequences. I notice you are always taking the side of our enemy no matter who it might be, whether communists, Islamic fanatics, tribal chieftains, what have you, if it goes against America, you all for it. and that is why I have so much trouble agreeing with you, for I was born in america, and I always hear you criticising my country.
No, Im' criticizing you personnaly, maybe cons and evangelicals too, as having a paranoid view on the world and being unable to discriminate among middle east who is to fight and who is to negociate with, and this is very clumsy.
Out of these disputes, I feel as a world citizen, not so different form any average rather leftist and peaceful US citizen; I like US SF books, US music except for bluegrass, US movies, US scientific research, I was as horrified as you by the 9/11 attack

In order for Americans to get in groove with the left wing, they are required to hate their own country and to always be suspicious of whatever their own government is doing and if something goes wrong, always to blame America first, this just doesn't sit well with me, do you understand? What you have against evangelicals and Jews I don't know, I believe they should have the freedom to worship and be allowed to try to convince others to worship as they do, so long as they are not hurting anybody else. I believe in the freedom of religion, but not in the freedom of violent religions to commit violence, that is where I draw the line.

They do not comply with international rules. Although the UN is now trying to say that they are special and that the rules don't apply to them so long as they act against America's
You support Israel which sits upon international rules and when international rules are not in favour of USA, USA sits upon international rules, so ?

If the International Rules say, Jew must die, and that its ok for Palestinians to kill them, but not ok for the Israeli Jew to defend himself, that is not just, and I don't feel any responsibility to adhere to any unjust International rule system that is based on antisemetic prejudice. The International Rules systems aren't based on democratic rules anyway, they are only agreements between democracies and dictatorships,and any compromise between just and unjust is by definition unjust, maybe a little less wrong, but still wrong.

DonPanic · 2006-11-20 05:37:37

If the International Rules say, Jew must die, and that its ok for Palestinians to kill them, but not ok for the Israeli Jew to defend himself,

The international rules say that no people should be occupied and his territory taken by foreign forces.

What you have against evangelicals and Jews I don't know,

Both say that Israel is THE elected people, therefore has superiority over other peoples.

dicktice · 2006-11-21 07:45:15

Tom, how you do go on and on.... All you have to point out, is the obvious fact that none of the head islamists have died voluntarily in all this while. Religion provides power to the heads of any faith, and ignorance is maintained for their continuence in power for life! And I mean for their entire natural lives. So why not tell us something new? Like, how to be rid of them all (in the nicest possible terms, of course).

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 01:49:45

How does one get to be head of an Islamic organization. Some will rise from the Suicide ranks no doubt. You can't always assume that Islam is a fraud perpertrated on the ranks by an educated leader who knows better. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it won't happen. How many passenger airplanes were deliberately crashed into buildings before 9/11?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2006-11-14 09:18:56

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#202 2006-11-14 17:24:52

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#203 2006-11-15 08:40:39

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#204 2006-11-15 09:09:14

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#205 2006-11-15 09:21:19

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#206 2006-11-15 11:05:04

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#207 2006-11-15 12:51:44

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#208 2006-11-15 14:41:38

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#209 2006-11-16 03:47:20

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#210 2006-11-16 04:50:30

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#211 2006-11-16 10:52:21

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#212 2006-11-16 11:42:39

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#213 2006-11-16 11:56:26

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#214 2006-11-16 13:18:17

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#215 2006-11-16 18:52:04

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#216 2006-11-17 04:56:59

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#217 2006-11-17 13:25:59

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#218 2006-11-17 17:08:06

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#219 2006-11-18 10:03:06

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#220 2006-11-18 10:24:34

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#221 2006-11-18 18:59:23

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#222 2006-11-19 11:19:19

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#223 2006-11-20 05:37:37

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#224 2006-11-21 07:45:15

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#225 2006-11-22 01:49:45

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer