Warmonger Thread

reply to post by Praetorius


No. The middle east and Islamists hate immigrants who aren't of Islam.

I get it. You don't like that because it doesn't fit your World view that only caucasians have those traits.

If a religious-nationalist group outside that group is showing those traits, they are a misunderstood oppressed minority (of over a billion people.)

The Middle East is a theocratic state that hates non-Islamic immigrants. You would prefer people don't see that, because it messes with the propaganda of the one-way acceptance of pluralism.

The Jews are immigrants to the area, and the hatred from their neighbours for them drives the Islamic nations to the brink of WWIII everyday.

People who support Iran typically only do so because they hate America and the west.

This is a gross over-gernerilization. I am opposed to intervention in Iran because of my love for America. I know that intervention in Iran would cause more harm than good to the American people.

Contrary to popular belief the diplomatic tract to stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb still exists. However, America's general hostility towards the country since the Islamic Revolution really dosen't aid this solution.

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by seabag

 

And what could we expect from a person who his avatar is an army man ?

Warmongering.

HEY HEY HEY!!!

No need for those kind of insults, this is a family board.

SeaBag is a MARINE, and from what I've seen a damn fine one too.

Semper Fi

reply to post by SyphonX


Seriously...

You state that there are UN officials, US President candidates, Blue Collar Americans and now most of Iran's Islamic neighbors [Arab or not] all are calling for something to be done about Iran's Nuclear ambitions [Which may be weapons related] but they are all wrong.

Because it doesn't fit into your Paradigm...
Now where have I heard that argument before?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Supply vs. demand.

You have to crack down on the demand side to reduce the supply side.

Supply and demand, not supply versus demand. This is an economic principle and has nothing at all to do with Constitutional government in the United States. It is nothing more than empty rhetoric, and shameful empty rhetoric that seems to be defending unconstitutional, and most assuredly unlawful violations of individuals rights.

No person has any lawful obligation to deprive themselves of labor or services because some bogus legislation declares it so.

No I meant Supply Vs. Demand as to where you put your actions to drive down illegal immigration.

By your comments, you of course think that unrestrained immigration is fabulous, I disagree. But thank you for showing up that you believe in inalienable rights, without also protecting any state that would allow them to exist.

Originally posted by Aeons


Yes, they can dismantle their nuclear program for enrichment for weapons grade nuclear material and immediately comply with the IEAE. They can stop playing chicken with trade routes, and they can stop funding terrorists.

As far as I am led to believe , they are being inspected by IEAE, so that would take care of the first 2 concerns.

The Strait of Hormuz is all talk to save face, you know that already.

Last one is tricky, your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi
Why isn't there a "thumbs down" option on ATS ....

Here you go....

reply to post by Aeons
Yes...that's why there are roughly 25k-30k jews in Iran who get along fairly well, have a reserved seat in government, their own synagogues, jewish schools, newspaper, and so forth...and this was significantly more expansive during the tenure of the Shah. Oh, such furious religious hatred...

Lets also not forget the jews in Iraq for...roughly the last 500 years, who also did fairly well until about the 1930s when - surprise surprise - drama arose mainly dealing with the palestine area and Nazi tensions/propaganda. The founding of Israel in 1948 was a much more pronounced turn.

*frown*

Perhaps you need to analyze your OWN worldview and realize that this might be more of a political dispute than a religious one, as historically - despite some bit of tension - the relationship was nowhere near so strained until about the last 80 years when zionism really started picking up. The religious issues are merely an inflamed consequence of the political matter.

EDIT:
And for clarity, since you continue to lob ridiculous assumptions (thanks for clarifying you weren't done there and taking me up on my offer ), I'm very well aware that ANYONE in ANY group can be bigoted, ignorant, or otherwise dumb - this might surprise you, but I happen to believe that people are intrinsically *human*...and surprisingly similar across the board, when not overly influenced by outside factors.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by deccal
Sniff sniff...
i smell many fat american people here. go and make a war with yourself, so that the world can breathe a peaceful air after so many years.

That's right. America should stand down so Iran can go back to peacefully stoning it's people to death for trivial sharia violations.

You want to justify your quote, as one of your reasons for going to war with Iran.... is that it?

Rattle the saber's!!! Mount the bastions!!! Holy mother of Gaod !!! --- The U.S. is ready to go and lose another war --- and this time it will be with Iran!!!

Signing off,

Erno86

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by SyphonX

 

Seriously...

You state that there are UN officials, US President candidates, Blue Collar Americans and now most of Iran's Islamic neighbors [Arab or not] all are calling for something to be done about Iran's Nuclear ambitions [Which may be weapons related] but they are all wrong.

Because it doesn't fit into your Paradigm...
Now where have I heard that argument before?

Your paradigm is murder, death and ignorance. Go ahead and side with the drunk horde, and the likes of John Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh etc. and all the Oligarchs that give them their scraps to feed on. So a select few can initiate a power vacuum in the mid-east to benefit said select few, at the expense of many.

That's your paradigm.

reply to post by David_Reale


Then Iran can start giving nuke tech to the African despots nations...er pretend democracies.... sorry... "democracies"... with no infrastructure to support them and we can have Fukishima all over the World.

Your vision of the future of the World, it is Glowingly fabulous.

reply to post by Erno86


You can't win wars against singular "sovereign" nations of Islam, because you're not fighting singular sovereign nations.

The Western nations haven't yet figured out how to tell people what the new definition of winning means without telling them that war has completely changed and giving credence to the actors in the new war.

Originally posted by SyphonX
Your paradigm is murder, death and ignorance. Go ahead and side with the drunk horde, and the likes of John Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh etc

HERE WE GO AGAIN...


I guess you make a habit of deciding for other people what they think.
That's a lousy way to live your life. You'll never learn a damn thing that way.

So I question Iran's activities and this means I support those guys automatically. Nice attempt at character assassination.

Let me know when you're ready to have a civil mature discussion.

PEACE

reply to post by Aeons

No I meant Supply Vs. Demand as to where you put your actions to drive down illegal immigration.

I got what you meant, and I all ready took you to task for your empty rhetoric that advocates the continued failure to do what has been Constitutionally mandated and instead blatantly violate the rights of individuals in order to appear as if government is employing actions that "drive down illegal immigration".

By your comments, you of course think that unrestrained immigration is fabulous, I disagree. But thank you for showing up that you believe in inalienable rights, without also protecting any state that would allow them to exist.

By your comment, you of course had to necessarily ignore the several comments I made insisting that the federal government has failed to protect the borders they have been Constitutionally mandated to do. It matters not to me why you are ignoring this, your agenda's are yours.

Whatever that agenda is, a huge clue as to the nature of that agenda lies in your language. Perhaps it is just your gross ignorance, or perhaps your agenda is more nefarious, but unalienable rights, by definition, cannot be "allowed" by any state...but thank you for showing up to show what utter disregard you have for these rights.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Aeons


Yes, they can dismantle their nuclear program for enrichment for weapons grade nuclear material and immediately comply with the IEAE. They can stop playing chicken with trade routes, and they can stop funding terrorists.

As far as I am led to believe , they are being inspected by IEAE, so that would take care of the first 2 concerns.

The Strait of Hormuz is all talk to save face, you know that already.

Last one is tricky, your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

No they aren't. They are still terrorists.

Unless you'd like to say that Anders Behring Breivik qualifies as a "freedom fighter" of course. Then at least you'll be consistent.

Considering that in Somalia in October some "freedom fighters"/"insurgents" bombed a Ministry of Education with line ups of youth looking for scholarships, and killed about the same number of people as Breivik and bombed a building. Same crime - one terrorist, the other "freedom fighters" fighting education.

I think both should be called terrorists. But then I'm pretty internally consistent. If you like, I could start calling call of them "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" just to make them seem more cuddly.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by David_Reale

 

Then Iran can start giving nuke tech to the African despots nations...er pretend democracies.... sorry... "democracies"... with no infrastructure to support them and we can have Fukishima all over the World.

Your vision of the future of the World, it is Glowingly fabulous.

You're assuming said African "despots nations" as you call them, have the ability to develop nuclear weapons. Even if they're given the tech, that doesn't mean they will have the ability to develop it into weapons. Because, among other things, it requires infrastructure to have a fully functional nuclear weapons program.

But yes, potentially, they could give the technology to these nations. You're forgetting, howeverr, that this nuclear technology could just as well come from any other nuclear power - Pakistan, China, Russia, even the US. If memory serves me right, it was France that provided the original technology for the nuclear technology currently being developed by Iran. Nothing I blame them for doing, but there you have it.

And my previous statement still stands. All nations have a right to the ability to defend themselves from their enemies, regardless of the nature of said nations, because regardless if they're democracies or not, they are still sovereign nations, with a right to decide their own future. If their enemies have nuclear weapons, then it's reasonable to expect the nation itself to attempt to acquire it as well.

And, again, the only country so far that has used nuclear weapons on humans, is America. If I were worried about nuclear war, which I'm not, because I'm not a white-collar worker with nothing better to do than worry about mushroom clouds all day long, then I'd be more worried about America's inclination to start it, then some third world African nation.

Also, refrain from putting words in my mouth, and pretend you know my 'vision' of the future. I don't do visions. Thaaaank you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Inalienable rights have to be protected. While I would love it if they existed without it, it just doesn't happen in reality.

So long as you continue to have demand, people (and illegal goods) will come across to fuel it. Unless you have some sort of super-energy-sheild that envelopes your nation all around and underground, demand will create supply.

reply to post by SLAYER69


That was one answer, yes.

You want another? Yes, they're all wrong and have ulterior motives to destabilize and conquer the region.