sd'sker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran. 2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture. These are very pro-Iranian concerns you have here. Which is odd, considering they're a sworn enemy of the U.S., and Israel is an ally. To what extent? I understand what you mean; the relationship and treaties, but in realpolitik terms what do they bring to the table? How does that compare to what we provide them? How does our relationship with Israel further our national goals and interests? it is in a convenient spot and for some reason politicians feel the need to one-up each other when it comes to pandering to the aipac. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Nuke the middle east from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. We failed by effing up multiple nations, so we should kill millions of people we already screwed because a few fanatics can't be controlled by the instability we created? . . . maybe krill needed to include the "insert sarcasm here" emoticon . . . I didn't think that anyone would actually take that seriously. Maybe, but I have heard many people who were serious about their nuk'em attitude. Regardless, I will let my statement stand on its own. I had been against the NATO invasion of Libya from day one, and there has been almost a complete media B****** of the disaster we had helped create there. NATO stands for Not Able To Organize Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Nuke the middle east from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. We failed by effing up multiple nations, so we should kill millions of people we already screwed because a few fanatics can't be controlled by the instability we created? . . . maybe krill needed to include the "insert sarcasm here" emoticon . . . I didn't think that anyone would actually take that seriously. krill was quoting Aliens, a film which also mentions the great state of Nebraska. -1 to everyone for not knowing that. Game over man, game over! What do you mean, "they" cut the power Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I've always been a bit of a fan of letting themselves weed each other out. Let them get their Darwin on, and we sit back and watch... Link to comment
sd'sker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I've always been a bit of a fan of letting themselves weed each other out. Let them get their Darwin on, and we sit back and watch... is that not what they did with the kurds, sunnis, and shiites when iraq was formed? sort of. a raw meat between to tigers theory, or some such thing. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 We destabilized these countries. Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_x04Gn3-2g Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 While I agree that we need real campaign finance reform I strongly disagree that "no results" is by design. Both sides would like to enact their agendas. The agenda of both sides is similar, other than on social issues. "By design", I meant that both the Ds and Rs support a similar pro-corporate (banker, etc) agenda that we see as a lack of progress. What alternative economic agenda would you propose? Increase corporate regulations, and eliminate conflicts of interests by people who write the regulations. Campaign finance reform. Eliminate media monopolies. Single payer health care. Return to Clinton era taxation levels. 1 Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran. 2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture. These are very pro-Iranian concerns you have here. Which is odd, considering they're a sworn enemy of the U.S., and Israel is an ally. Those are not pro-Iranian, they are common sense. By complying they would be surrendering to a foreign power. That is not going to happen, which makes he demand unrealistic. I am ashamed that the nation of Israel is our ally. Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be. 1 Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to be suggesting Israel have inspectors to look for nuclear weapon development. Israel already has nukes. Everyone knows they have nukes, and the Sampson Option is also known by many. What the Iranian concern is is that they do not want western spies acting as inspectors. Israel would not accept Iranian spies in their nuclear sites. Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be. Do you know any Iranians? I know several, and they would very, very much disagree with this statement. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be. Do you know any Iranians? I know several, and they would very, very much disagree with this statement. Personally at the moment, no. I would be interested to hear what your acquainteces think. Why do you believe that the Iranians helped us with our invasion of Afghanistan? Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 In what way did they help with the invasion of Afghanistan? Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 In what way did they help with the invasion of Afghanistan? Sorry, I thought that was common knowledge. I will have to wait till tonight to pull up some links. Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I would love to see these links showing Iranian assistance of the American invasion. What I've pulled up are a bunch of tinfoil hat folks on youtube claiming the US and Iran are working together, but no credible news source concurs. There are dozens of hits showing that Americans accuse Iranian operatives of being in Afghanistan, training the local population to resist the Americans. If by "help" you mean "train the indigenous to blow up roadside bombs to kill American soldiers" then yes, Iran is helping. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 In what way did they help with the invasion of Afghanistan? This should be good... Link to comment
Recommended Posts