Warmonger Thread

Yeah, I like their fantasy world too. Tragically, the real world involves the Iranian regime producing a documentary naming all the figures who are active right now on their "side" as the fulfillment of the Prophecy of the 12 Imam.

Real Politick - you can't ignore it just because it doesn't fit how you'd like the World to be.

reply to post by seabag


To hell with what people think!

I am a true red-blooded American from the Land of the FREE & Home of the BRAVE!

WAR is necessary to oppress TYRANNY that would otherwise spread like wildfire around the world.
I have been a fighter all my life and WAR once declared by the US is justified. People around the world hate our country because they are jealous and envious of our supreme niche atop the world in The Eagle's Nest.

I love being in the Eagle's nest where safety, comfort and prosperity dwells.

I love my country and War has afforded me and my fellow countrymen the luxury of freedom.

I love WAR...The United States is master of everything we survey on Earth for a reason!

EXTREMELY PROUD AMERICAN!

DEATH TO ALL WHO STAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

reply to post by Aeons

I agree. I am taking schooling in how to deconstruct blatant disinformation techniques. Your's is very amusing. I appreciate it. Do you chuckle while formulating this stuff?

Too bad, that with all this schooling, you're are having such a hard time getting an education. You may feel that deconstructing and analyzing your opponents debating style has some sort of effect on any resolution of this debate, but reflecting on how another person makes an argument is not an argument.

If you had any substantive argument as to why the United States should invade Iran, then logic dictates that this would be your focus of attention, not how I am constructing my arguments. Discussing the style I employ does not, in any way, refute or rebut what I am saying.

If there is a valid reason as to why the United States should invade Iran then your best argument towards that end would be the stronger choice. The notion that Iran's nuclear ambitions alone justify a war with Iran is a specious argument. If the United States is unwilling to disarm their own nuclear arsenal then the objection against Iran's development of a nuclear arsenal is way beyond disingenuous. If some sort of rule of law is expected to be honored, and any invasion in a nation developing, or stubbornly clinging to a nuclear arsenal is to be seen as a justifiable action in defense of the rule of the law, then let that enforcer be free of nuclear weaponry themselves. Otherwise, it is not rule of law that is being invoked, but rather rule by "law", claiming the mightier force gets to dictate the rules and whimsically and arbitrarily exempt themselves from those rules.

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why the U.S. should invade Iran. If you have that valid argument, then make it...or keep wasting your time reflecting on how others construct their arguments.

reply to post by maestromason


" DEATH TO ALL WHO STAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! "


Does that Also Include in your Beliefs the Very Real Domestic Threats to Our Freedoms right here in America ? The Ones I Speak Of Lurk in the Shadows of Our Federal and State Goverments , and Amoung the Upper Echelons of The Military Industrial Complex Controled by the Corporate Elite . They are the Treasonous Ones who Hide Behind the False Flag of Manipulated Patriotism in Order to One Day Destroy our Republic from Within . Would You Fight the Good Fight Against Them Too ? .........

Originally posted by maestromason

I love WAR...

EXTREMELY PROUD AMERICAN!

DEATH TO ALL WHO STAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

......foreign and Domestic.

Go get em Gomer Pyle.

They been spotted in Washington. (city not state)

www.npr.org...

Transcription of a radio show with various opinions on the Iranian program.

muslimvillage.com...

WWIII, the narrative.

rt.com...

More on Iran's "unfortunate" enrichment.

www.foreignaffairs.com...

You could let Iran build nukes, and then press instead for your allies to not do so in the face of Iranian aggression.

I imagine being friends with this guy makes you never want to hike with him too close to a cliff, in case making another hiker happy on the trail means that he'd have to push you over it.

The non-proliferation people - they seem to actually produce *more* proliferation. I find this fascinating.

www.theatlantic.com...

A plan for complete non-proliferation.

Which I'm sure will work well when Pakistan's military looks to be setting up a coup again, and they are .... nuclear. And sabre rattling at India.

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

India is setting up a new "cold start" readiness for a duel front war between them and China and Pakistan, who have both been increasing their nuclear arms.

Might I point out that I agree with Gen Singh that nukes used in these close proximity areas really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Which is why dirty nuclear is the more attractive military option, and conveniently doesn't need the same level of enrichment to achieve.

youtu.be...

reply to post by maestromason


"Carthago delenda est............."

History repeats itself,sadly.

Sigh.

Patriotism and Nationalism are two different things.

Attitudes like this has led to exterminations of whole nations of indigenous peoples on our tiny planet. I am American, Patriotic,but in no way do I find War glorious.No true blooded American would.

We can learn alot from the Past..................

“There was never a good war or a bad peace.” Benjamin Franklin

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind” John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.Douglas MacArthur


I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.Douglas MacArthur

Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.Omar N. Bradley

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

en.wikipedia.org...(writing)

Squib: Satirical writing.

You've been had. Or you are trying to have us. Whatever.

I still love the idea of hearing Kissinger say the word Noob in that odd voice of his.

No, I just had to try that since the majority of people here never responded to my serious arguments and questions.

Zero. Zilch.

Thought I test out if they recognize THIS.

The prevailing mood now on this thread is "you are either anti-Iran or Anti-American."

Which is not exactly the solution of IQ's over 70... and people need far more than that to understand nuclear weapons at all.

Originally posted by maestromason
reply to post by seabag

 

To hell with what people think!

I am a true red-blooded American from the Land of the FREE & Home of the BRAVE!

WAR is necessary to oppress TYRANNY that would otherwise spread like wildfire around the world.
I have been a fighter all my life and WAR once declared by the US is justified. People around the world hate our country because they are jealous and envious of our supreme niche atop the world in The Eagle's Nest.

I love being in the Eagle's nest where safety, comfort and prosperity dwells.

I love my country and War has afforded me and my fellow countrymen the luxury of freedom.

I love WAR...The United States is master of everything we survey on Earth for a reason!

EXTREMELY PROUD AMERICAN!

DEATH TO ALL WHO STAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Blah blah blah, kill kill die die.

T&C stops me from telling what i think of you and people like you..
With people like you, with comments like those that you have made, its no wonder people are starting to hate America and Americans.

It might be a great view for you sitting on top of the tree in your eagles nest with your head in the clouds, but just remember all trees end up dying and falling to the ground and i for one cant wait for you and your nest to fall to the ground with it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

The hyperlink above is an op/ed piece written by George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn and published by the Wall Street Journal five years ago.

Finally a piece of good writing, thank you Jean-Paul.
Parts of it could and should be quoted here.
Don't know if it's worth quoting here though, 'cause I started to miss thinking and arguments in the last twenty pages (with a couple of notable exceptions like Rigel, whom I thank).

reply to post by Zanti Misfit
the time for you to know is not know but will be soon, for we that know what Iran US west and Israel play in the play of life and of the end times, they say it is 5 to midnight, ha it is 2 till.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I haven't called for the US to invade Iran.

You are already at war with Iran. Clearly it hasn't yet meant that you've invaded. It'll probably never mean you invade.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet Jean?

reply to post by Kokatsi


You're most welcome my friend. I agree it is a good piece of writing, and it is quite interesting that it is written by so many former cold war hawks.

As an interesting side note:

And Kissinger's legendary ego comes into focus. As he signed on to the initial op-ed calling for an end to nuclear weapons he told friends that he doubted it could work, a two-track approach that would let him bask in the glow of success should the nuclear arsenals be dissolved, but also claim foresight should it crumble.

articles.latimes.com...

Kissinger was, of course, a master of real politik.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Just like immigration to the New World, the nuclear age was going to happen.

Maybe you'd like Newton to apologize for being the one that got calculus off the ground in a Neo-Luddite frenzy?

Maybe it is unavoidable. I was reading a long and interesting thread on godlike where a very educated and extremely intelligent OP pretty much convinced us that a coming nuclear world war and months of darkness are actually necessary - because our civilization has grown so stupid that nothing else will rectify the course of human progress. (For Christians, the period of true civilization after the war would be, according to him, what the expression "second coming" has been alluding to). In that war, probably 40% of people will die anyway. And yes, it is likely that it will start in Iran or Israel.

I was really awaiting some intelligent arguments for the war (like his), since I am still against it "on principle," but judging from the moods of most people I'm in contact with, it really starts to look like unavoidable.

I lived in Norfolk, VA for a while. The Chesapeake Bay was polluted by inner coolant water and people had an increased incidence of cancer.
The cause: barely literate people were allowed to handle nuclear stuff, guys who could not tell inner coolant from outer, and at school their teacher was discouraged from requiring the Newtonian rule F=m x a. That was how much they understood what they were handling every day.

reply to post by bekod


You speak somewhat Cryptically here . This I Know, the Birth Pangs of the NWO will be Very Painful for all of us unless we somehow Abort it before it is brought Forth . Death , Destruction , the likes of which we have Never seen in Human History awaits us if we Fail . These are Trying Times Indeed Today.........



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Kokatsi


There are no good reasons. There are merely unavoidable reasons.

The clash of civilizations is deep and ignored, and is the subcontext that nobody wants to touch. The clash is not simply between the civilizations, but a vertical clash between the middle and super-rich/corps here and the superrich/theocrats there, none of whom are necessarily acting on anyone's behalf but their own.

The vertical clash doesn't repair itself by cow towing to Iran. Let us get Iran to heel, and then we can deal with the vertical clash which is adding complexity which is unnecessary. Or at least bring them to heel as well.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aeons

 

I agree. I am taking schooling in how to deconstruct blatant disinformation techniques. Your's is very amusing. I appreciate it. Do you chuckle while formulating this stuff?

Too bad, that with all this schooling, you're are having such a hard time getting an education. You may feel that deconstructing and analyzing your opponents debating style has some sort of effect on any resolution of this debate, but reflecting on how another person makes an argument is not an argument.

If you had any substantive argument as to why the United States should invade Iran, then logic dictates that this would be your focus of attention, not how I am constructing my arguments. Discussing the style I employ does not, in any way, refute or rebut what I am saying.

If there is a valid reason as to why the United States should invade Iran then your best argument towards that end would be the stronger choice. The notion that Iran's nuclear ambitions alone justify a war with Iran is a specious argument. If the United States is unwilling to disarm their own nuclear arsenal then the objection against Iran's development of a nuclear arsenal is way beyond disingenuous. If some sort of rule of law is expected to be honored, and any invasion in a nation developing, or stubbornly clinging to a nuclear arsenal is to be seen as a justifiable action in defense of the rule of the law, then let that enforcer be free of nuclear weaponry themselves. Otherwise, it is not rule of law that is being invoked, but rather rule by "law", claiming the mightier force gets to dictate the rules and whimsically and arbitrarily exempt themselves from those rules.

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why the U.S. should invade Iran. If you have that valid argument, then make it...or keep wasting your time reflecting on how others construct their arguments.

This is because you have no real life experience in the field and have relied on what you read and have been told to formulate your opinions. I have and still do work in the field...reading your post...I could not help but laugh at how uninformed as well as uneducated on the reality of what is going on.

You are the type to be the first to complain if something hinders your ability or rights but the last to volunteer to do anything about it. Pathetic. Split Infinity

Well I would not like to see Iran with a nuclear weapon, but I don't like anybody with them to be honest.

I do however wish people calling for the preemptive strike on Iran would have as much enthusiasm about overthrowing the domestic enemies here in the States which are in Washington DC.

I also know its easy to call for war when you are in a place where their will be no threat to you at all.

I often wonder how many people would call for this war if Iran were China and could actually hit us back. I just find it funny noone ever calls for a war with a country who can fight back and stand a chance.

Israel could take care of Iran and I think they will if they perceive a imminent threat even without the US go ahead.

I look at it like this. Say the US is a big 300 lbs defensive lineman, Israel is a 230 lb tight end, Iran is the 150 lb water-boy...

Now how much sense does it make that the 230 lb tight end would need to get help from the defensive lineman to take care of the water-boy?

I know thats just my analogy, but I say let Israel take care of them , they have the capability to.


Also since we are talking about what ifs and hypotheticals regarding Iran i would like to put this hypothetical situation forth to Seabag.

This would probably never happen but what if you knew 100% without a doubt that preemptively attacking Iran would bring Russia and China to their defense would you still be gung ho about striking first?

Or are you only willing to pre strike a nation who can not bring damage to our soil?

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I haven't called for the US to invade Iran.

You are already at war with Iran. Clearly it hasn't yet meant that you've invade. It'll probably never mean you invade.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet Jean?

No, under the Constitution that empowers the federal government of the United States, if the U.S. is actually at war with Iran, then Congress would have declared war, and this is why the U.S. only engages in "military actions", or "conflicts", because Congress has not officially declared war since World War II. The obvious political advantage to not officially declaring war is that whatever military intervention is being employed will invariably be argued that it is not an act of war and therefore not bound by the rules of war that conform with accepted agreements like the Geneva Convention.

It is a mystical art of legal wizardry to argue that military actions done outside the purview of war are exempt from the rules of war, and has nothing at all to do with the rule of law. This is one of the many shameful acts of atrocity being waged by a federal government ordained by the people, and for too large of the population, this atrocious behavior is not only approved of but defended, and not just defended but vehemently so.

Perhaps you think you are sitting on some fence painted gray and that all you are trying to do is offer a world weary view that prognosticates an exuberant pessimism and a poetic fatalism. Who knows? If you do think that a gray world perspective sheds any light on the question of war, then you just don't understand the very black and white issues of war. War is stupid. War is hell. War should be avoided, never at all costs, but certainly this call for war is avoidable. Either way, when it comes to war, there is no room for gray hats. Regardless of the side you stand on, there are only white hats and black hats, that's the cold hard reality of war, and shades of gray are useless under such circumstance.