POLITICS: Israeli Legislators to Washington: If You Don't Stop Iran, We Will

Originally posted by brimstone735

Yeah, have you turned on a televison or opened up a newspaper, at any point in the last twenty five years, or did I suddenly wake up in bizarro world, and this is just the first indicator of the paradigm shft in reality?

I find it unnerving to learn you rely on television and newspapers for accurate information. Surely this is not your only source of information on current events ?

just curious.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by ImJaded]

Oh please, since when has a political party adhered to the ideals it names itself on and pays lip service to? The American Democrats are about as liberal and democratic as the Republican party. Politicians are completely different ball game when it comes to giving a label to ones own ideals.

Well I'd argue with that, if I actually disagreed with it

But it doesn't contradict my point.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Again, putting words in my mouth, and you even have the gall to put quotation marks around it as if I actually typed that. Where did I say that I was "pro-nuke"? Where's the PROOF?! Iran is a signatory to the NPT. BushCo.'s word that they are "out to nuke us all" is just not good enough any more. They made sure of that with the last fiasco, which, I might add, wasn't the first time anyway.
[edit on 2005-10-3 by wecomeinpeace]

You can keep linking the same BBC article all you want, but if it wasn't fundementalists who hijacked AND committed suicide by crashing planes into buildings, who did? Were all the victims in on it when they called their families on their cell phones? Did the pilots parachute out at the last possible moment?

Oh, they stopped the planes and flew them by remote control.

Wanting Iran to have a nuclear program makes you pro-nuke. They're a rogue state who openly supports terrorism, assassination, and suicide bombing, and you honestly think they won't develop a weapon?

There isn't a nation on this planet that wouldn't kill every single one of us for a nuclear bomb, especially Iran. To think otherwise is nieve and lacking common sense.

Furthermore, I don't support George Bush or the war in Iraq. So, you can keep that Neo Con nonsense for the GOP zombies.

Originally posted by subz
Anyone who calls themself a liberal democrat would be more interested in global stability and balance rather than arguing for the continuation of American hegemony.

[edit on 3/10/05 by subz]

Wait, so I'm a troll because I disagree with your arguement? That's a really nice attempt to dismiss my point of view, even though I've been here longer than you.

I'm not for American Hegemony, I'm against Armageddon.

The point is not that anyone actually wants Iran to get the bomb.

The point is that if they want the bomb, we dont have a lot of realistic options, beyond war, to stop them from getting it. So feeding the hysteria about Iran's nuclear program is only likely to make things worse, not better. It makes bloodshed and mayhem more likely, not less.

See the point?

Originally posted by xmotex
Well I'd argue with that, if I actually disagreed with it

But it doesn't contradict my point.

Oh, well I think we must have crossed wires. I draw a distinction between what I class myself as "a liberal democrat" and the politicians who say they espouse the same ideals. Just because Hillary Clinton claims to be a liberal democrat and acts in an opposite fashion doesnt change the true meaning of the moniker "liberal democrat".

Does that make any sense?

Originally posted by ImJaded
I find it unnerving to learn you rely on television and newspapers for accurate information. Surely this is not your only source of information on current events ?

just curious.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by ImJaded]

I post on Abovetopsecret, what exactly do you think?

Honestly, I usually wait for the traveling minstrels to give me my daily dose of accurate news about the current state of the kingdom. What with the singing and the dancing and the thing they do with the puppets, it's sometimes hard to understand context in the form of Iambic Pentameter.

Furthermore, you are aware that there was life before the internet, right? And before the internet, people did get information from television and the newspapers, because Smoke Signals weren't available?

just curious.

Oh, well I think we must have crossed wires.

Sure, I understand what you're getting at, but all these labels are entirely subjective anyway. I tend to think of myself as a lefty-libertarian, and I am aware a lot of doctrinaire libertarians would see that as an inherently contradictory label anyway.


[edit on 10/3/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by brimstone735
You can keep linking the same BBC article all you want, but if it wasn't fundementalists who hijacked AND committed suicide by crashing planes into buildings, who did?

I dunno, man. Why don't you tell me? Because the little thing of those dudes still being alive kinda puts a big fat spanner in the works for the "fundamentalists hijacked the planes" theory. So yeah, who was it then? I'd really like to know.

Wanting Iran to have a nuclear program makes you pro-nuke. They're a rogue state who openly supports terrorism, assassination, and suicide bombing, and you honestly think they won't develop a weapon?

No, it doesn't make me pro-nuke. It makes me pro-sovereignty. Iran has had weapons of mass destruction for years. It was the US who GAVE them nuclear tech way back in the 60's. Show me, in 45 years, where an Iranian WMD has made it into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Furthermore, I don't support George Bush or the war in Iraq. So, you can keep that Neo Con nonsense for the GOP zombies.

You are the one who started all this political labelling, and then you tell others to stop with the labelling nonsense. I never said you were a neocon, and you are AGAIN putting words in my mouth. I couldn't give a rats derrière if you're a Leninist lesbian biker nun, it has no bearing on the facts whatsoever.

[edit on 2005-10-3 by wecomeinpeace]

thanks for that update Captain Obvious

*sigh* yeah gotta love the internet huh ?


I'd probably be a statistic if I based any opinion that was mine on what mainstream media report these days



[edit on 3-10-2005 by ImJaded]

Im only going to say this one time

The sniping is going to stop. If you want to debate the merits of the current US administration then by all means DO so on PTS. Otherwise, stay ON topic, maintain a bit of civility, stop the personal sniping and most of all, Have fun other there

Fred

my bad Fred, I apologize and am happy to continue posting on topic and ignore everything else.

Personally I think the way that the US and Israel both jumped so quickly to accuse Iran of wanting to build weapons of mass destruction was suspicious to say the least, and quite immature ... and I say this because I have yet to hear of anybody else being so bossy about it.
If anybody has something for me to read on this I would appreciate a link or something ... until then I'll continue to frown upon both for this idiocy.

brimstone735, notice I said proof.

I know people from Iran who go to University over in the United Kingdom and they view it as a very different place to the media. I would suggest you look at what the media get out of their stories and articles and why they are always anti-someone, without ever looking into their own backyards.

Hello Iran! Here we come! (With a British accent)

news.bbc.co.uk...

WMD and now terrorist attacks! Yeah! Another Irak!

What the...?!

Reading through that story, I came across this:



"It was that arrest which sparked off an anti-British protest in Basra recently."

Is it just me or is that complete spin?! Are they referring to the protests in Basra due to two SAS guys disguised as Arabs with weapons and possibly explosives equipment in their vehicles, shooting Iraqi police and then being extracted by the British military? Or are they referring to other protests in Basra? If not, then that is a complete and utter Orwellian alteration of history.

I do not think Israel would have any problem whipping every Moslem country in the region. Either consecutively, or concurrently.

groingrinder, you do realise how many Nation's there are in that region? Not just the Middle East but Africa and how many million people that is?

Please, do tell me how they'd do that? Especailly since it'd unite millions of people against such a small nation/population.

I depends what you mean by "whipping".

They could probably defend themselves sucessfully against any likely adversary in the region - or even any combination therof. On the other hand their capabilities and manpower are limited, and if they wanted to wage an offensive conflict they'd have to go nuclear. The consequences of that would make any "victory" meaningless.

[edit on 10/5/05 by xmotex]

Iran.
Saudi Arabia.
Syria.
Egypt.
Turkey.
Jordon.
Libya.

That is to name a few in the region who are all heavily Muslim. Combined military force all against Israel? Israel only has a population of 6.9million...

Israel [6.9 million] against all the Islamic Nation's? Isn't that nearly 300million people in that region?

Oh yeah...they'll kick so much ass. :|

Isreal: we will go after them if you dont...

you all go on with your bad self...
don't let us hold you up...


I fail to see the problem here... if they are so all fired dumb to go after the core of islam... let them do it.
it would distract the iranians coming over the border into Iraq...

would it start world war 3?
not if we don't get involved it wont...THAT party doesn't start unless we are there...

the real issue is that of course, we would be dragged in...
this is something that we should make a resounding statment of "NOT NO, BUT HELL NO" before someone starts shooting...