War Drums Start Beating on Iran?

[Fawlty]

Who has Iran ever invaded? When have they offensively engaged militarily?

Stop them from doin what?

Two denials of the objective hazard of Islamo-fascists wielding nukes.

 

[HomerThompson]

Two denials of the objective hazard of Islamo-fascists wielding nukes.

So, you have no actual point to make. Instead, painting an entire nation as evil. Congrats, you're Dick Cheney.

 

[Fawlty]

So, you have no actual point to make. Instead, painting an entire nation as evil. Congrats, you're Dick Cheney.

No, I'm not Dick Cheney. We have a good policy on Iran, and we should not invade or attack them. They are abiding by the nuke treaty, and we've just officially recognized that again, which is good.

I'm also not painting a nation as evil- I'm painting the person responsible for their weapons systems- their commander-in-chief- as evil, and rightfully so. You have some backtracking to do.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Two denials of the objective hazard of Islamo-fascists wielding nukes.

What about the objective hazaed of not having nukes? Seems that there is more evidence for the latter yeah?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So, you have no actual point to make. Instead, painting an entire nation as evil. Congrats, you're Dick Cheney.

He has to carefully balance his faux liberal persona with the one that backs neocons like Clinton.

 

[Buck Swope]

Are we not past the nuclear age? It's old hat. If some fuckhead country tries do use that weapon they will be bombed into oblivion.

The U.S. has weapons just waiting for that shit. Go for it Iran. Go for it N. Korea.

This is just window dressing to take our minds off what is really happening.

 

[Fawlty]

Are we not past the nuclear age? It's old hat. If some fuckhead country tries do use that weapon they will be bombed into oblivion.

The U.S. has weapons just waiting for that shit. Go for it Iran. Go for it N. Korea.

This is just window dressing to take our minds off what is really happening.

No, those are things that are really happening. N Korea is really threatening use of nukes, and we really need to make policy concessions to China to get help there. Iran is really interested in acquiring nuclear weapons, and we really need to continue holding them to their commitments. Those are real things.

 

[Fawlty]

He has to carefully balance his faux liberal persona with the one that backs neocons like Clinton.

Again, for the againth time, Clinton's Syria policy was too aggressive and by far her weakest point. And again, I don't support toppling the leadership of any country or turning any former Soviet client states into American client states. Keep lying though.

 

[Buck Swope]

No, those are things that are really happening. N Korea is really threatening use of nukes, and we really need to make policy concessions to China to get help there. Iran is really interested in acquiring nuclear weapons, and we really need to continue holding them to their commitments. Those are real things.

This is such a global economy that China will not let that happen anyway. Why invest political clout on something China will take care of anyway?

You sound paranoid.

 

[Fawlty]

This is such a global economy that China will not let that happen anyway. Why invest political clout on something China will take care of anyway?

You sound paranoid.

Your post makes zero sense and contradicts the current political reality, without providing any information.

 

[HomerThompson]

No, I'm not Dick Cheney. We have a good policy on Iran, and we should not invade or attack them. They are abiding by the nuke treaty, and we've just officially recognized that again, which is good.

I'm also not painting a nation as evil- I'm painting the person responsible for their weapons systems- their commander-in-chief- as evil, and rightfully so. You have some backtracking to do.

You have yet to provide any reason for Iran having nukes as a bad thing. I like the nuke treaty in that it delays our attacking of another sovereign nation.

 

[Sir Galahad]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39649683

Are neocons in Washington trying to get back to their original game plan that got derailed by unexpected high cost in Iraq?

 

[Fawlty]

You have yet to provide any reason for Iran having nukes as a bad thing. I like the nuke treaty in that it delays our attacking of another sovereign nation.

Of course I provided a reason. Maybe the best reason. Fascist, theocratic leaders who control their country's military cannot have nukes. If you want to say that's just dandy, be my guest.

We're already in too deep with Pakistan and North Korea. Fortunately, Pakistani military leadership has not yet fallen to the more outrageous brands of Islam-fascism, and India is a very strong deterrent. Still a terrible situation ripe for a nuke exchange. Thankfully, North Korea is within China's sphere of influence and we can pressure them as well because they rely on us to feed their people, plus a strong S Korean presence.

Iran on the other hand is a real regional power, and they took the terrorism sponsorship crown from the US and Russia years ago. Are you volunteering to watch their stockpile?

It's also proliferation, which is bad for such obvious reasons I shouldn't even have to explain.

 

[HomerThompson]

Of course I provided a reason. Maybe the best reason. Fascist, theocratic leaders who control their country's military cannot have nukes. If you want to say that's just dandy, be my guest.

We're already in too deep with Pakistan and North Korea. Fortunately, Pakistani military leadership has not yet fallen to the more outrageous brands of Islam-fascism, and India is a very strong deterrent. Still a terrible situation ripe for a nuke exchange. Thankfully, North Korea is within China's sphere of influence and we can pressure them as well because they rely on us to feed their people, plus a strong S Korean presence.

Iran on the other hand is a real regional power, and they took the terrorism sponsorship crown from the US and Russia years ago. Are you volunteering to watch their stockpile?

It's also proliferation, which is bad for such obvious reasons I shouldn't even have to explain.

LOL. Our terrorism is light years beyond anything Iran could ever dream of. Having an actual nuclear deterrent is the only thing that will protect them from Israeli/US aggression in the long term.

 

[Fawlty]

LOL. Our terrorism is light years beyond anything Iran could ever dream of. Having an actual nuclear deterrent is the only thing that will protect them from Israeli/US aggression in the long term.

That's a really unfortunate pov. Your idea would virtually guarantee Islamic dictatorships and other shitholes the world over having nukes. After all, poor besieged Assad needs to deter aggression, so give him nukes. Poor Chechnya, poor Afghanistan, poor Libya. All of these poor, poor nations. When will they get the defensive nukes they so desperately need?

Why are you so in favor of massive nuke proliferation? I thought you were peaceful.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Again, for the againth time, Clinton's Syria policy was too aggressive and by far her weakest point. And again, I don't support toppling the leadership of any country or turning any former Soviet client states into American client states. Keep lying though.

Who mention Syria? Keep posing

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Of course I provided a reason. Maybe the best reason. Fascist, theocratic leaders who control their country's military cannot have nukes. If you want to say that's just dandy, be my guest.

We're already in too deep with Pakistan and North Korea. Fortunately, Pakistani military leadership has not yet fallen to the more outrageous brands of Islam-fascism, and India is a very strong deterrent. Still a terrible situation ripe for a nuke exchange. Thankfully, North Korea is within China's sphere of influence and we can pressure them as well because they rely on us to feed their people, plus a strong S Korean presence.

Iran on the other hand is a real regional power, and they took the terrorism sponsorship crown from the US and Russia years ago. Are you volunteering to watch their stockpile?

It's also proliferation, which is bad for such obvious reasons I shouldn't even have to explain.

Do you want to compare the body counts of Iran's evil war lord Islamic fascist meanie boogey men to the Democratically elected Christians of the United States?

 

[HomerThompson]

That's a really unfortunate pov. Your idea would virtually guarantee Islamic dictatorships and other shitholes the world over having nukes. After all, poor besieged Assad needs to deter aggression, so give him nukes. Poor Chechnya, poor Afghanistan, poor Libya. All of these poor, poor nations. When will they get the defensive nukes they so desperately need?

Why are you so in favor of massive nuke proliferation? I thought you were peaceful.

Weak. Way to set up a straw man to attack. I never argued in favor of nuclear proliferation. We're talking specifically about Iran. Really disingenuous arguing.

 

[Fawlty]

Weak. Way to set up a straw man to attack. I never argued in favor of nuclear proliferation. We're talking specifically about Iran. Really disingenuous arguing.

It's not a straw man, it's a slippery slope argument, and it's a valid one. Your exception for Iran is that they are deterring aggression by nuclear powers. That applies to other countries who are supposedly under aggression from nuclear powers. If Assad finally snuffs out the civil war, how soon thereafter will he be allowed a HomerThompson permit to pursue nuclear weapons? I'm identifying your standard and applying it.

Iran is being handled well right now too.

 

[Fawlty]

Do you want to compare the body counts of Iran's evil war lord Islamic fascist meanie boogey men to the Democratically elected Christians of the United States?

No, because you consider nearly everything we do to be terrorism, because you're a goddamn froot loop.