Why do you love Iran?

reply to post by theconspirator


There is no such thing as an average person my friend. You have many amazing capabilities. If you're government wasn't so corrupt, you would see life WAYYY diferent.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Actually Iran denies us access to their suspected facilities. Israel has too much to lose to launch an attack , one or two nukes and everyone in Israel is pretty much dead. So launching a nuke in a preemptive strike pretty much ensures they engaged in "MAD". Iran on the other hand has a much larger country than Israel and allows for movement and underground access that an invasion can not completely inhibit until later in the war allowing them to hide and escape the country or conduct attacks.

Israel does not have the luxury of doing this.

edit on 13-2-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

I think you're mistaken. Israel denies the IAEA access, not Iran. Besides, as recent as last month, the IAEA as well as the head of the CIA have both said that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This hasn't stopped the TV networks, run mainly by dual-citizens, and the newspapers, owned by dual-citizens, from trying to claim otherwise.

You guys had better stop. When the head of the CIA knows you're full of it, you are in trouble. He also certainly knows about the false flags you guys have planned, to force the USA into a confrontation. If I were a boiler-room operative, I'd be very wary right now. Things can turn viciously around quicker than you might think.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


You trust the government is telling you the truth about Iran, yet in the same breath admit that the same government is controlling over freedoms and willing to shut down websites so people can't speak freely.

Hmm now tell me who is mixed up again?

Edited , moved.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

It some how passed in the court of law. So guess it isnt as cooked as you think it is.

edit on 13-2-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Just because something "passed in the court of law," this doesn't imply it is true. Courts are easily subverted, and dual-citizens are prominent in the legal community here, to our detriment.

You obviously aren't a paid shill from the republican party. You seem to be defending Obama and hating on Reagan and Bush. On Iran. Iran hasn't started a military conflict in who knows how long. The U.S hasn't started a military conflict sense..well..they always seem to start military conflicts. the U.S Sanctions on Iran are threatening their sovereignty. They are having trouble getting food imports for god sakes. If anyone is threatening anybody its the U.S with those heavy sanctions.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

I need current affairs, Like the showdown between Iran and the US.

Where are you getting that info?

I asked for current affairs, your giving me History.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Here , ill link it for you directly out of my Ebook.

What you are refering to is a direct democracy.

They were aware of the Athenian model, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were opposed to such a system. They regarded democracy as a dangerous idea that could lead to instability. Nevertheless, in the 1700s and 1800s, the idea of government based on the consent of the people gained increasing popular- ity. Such a government was the main aspiration of the American Revolution in 1775, the French Revolution in 1789, and many subsequent revolutions. At the time of the American Revolution, however, the masses were still considered to be too uneducated to govern themselves, too prone to the influence of dema- gogues (political leaders who manipulate popular prejudices), and too likely to subordinate minority
rights to the tyranny of the majority. James Madison, while defending the new
scheme of government set forth in the U.S. Constitution, warned of the problems inherent in a
pure democracy:

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole . . . and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, and have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.3
Like other politicians of his time, Madison feared that pure, or direct, democracy would deteriorate into mob rule. What would keep the majority of the people, if given direct decision-making power, from abusing the rights of those in the minority?


SOURCE : my Textbook : American Government and politics Today : Essentials 2011-2012


If you dont consider the Constitution current affairs , then you have no valid point in making an opinion in American affairs , as we are (at least for now) majorly with the US constitution.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


Courts are considered right until it is appealed , so for now. You are wrong , legally wrong and Legally is what matters if you havnt noticed.

Iran sent Obama model toy drone , thats kinda funny

reply to post by milkyway12


So basically, you have no sources for your accusations, just rhectoric from Fox news.

And probably never finished the third grade, hence the e-books.

You've been found out, b een fun though.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Here , ill link it for you directly out of my Ebook.

What you are refering to is a direct democracy.

They were aware of the Athenian model, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were opposed to such a system. They regarded democracy as a dangerous idea that could lead to instability. Nevertheless, in the 1700s and 1800s, the idea of government based on the consent of the people gained increasing popular- ity. Such a government was the main aspiration of the American Revolution in 1775, the French Revolution in 1789, and many subsequent revolutions. At the time of the American Revolution, however, the masses were still considered to be too uneducated to govern themselves, too prone to the influence of dema- gogues (political leaders who manipulate popular prejudices), and too likely to subordinate minority
rights to the tyranny of the majority. James Madison, while defending the new
scheme of government set forth in the U.S. Constitution, warned of the problems inherent in a
pure democracy:

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole . . . and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, and have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and
have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.3
Like other politicians of his time, Madison feared that pure, or direct, democracy would deteriorate into mob rule. What would keep the majority of the people, if given direct decision-making power, from abusing the rights of those in the minority?


SOURCE : my Textbook : American Government and politics Today : Essentials 2011-2012


If you dont consider the Constitution current affairs , then you have no valid point in making an opinion in American affairs , as we are (at least for now) majorly with the US constitution.

You are not "with" the Constitution. It's you guys who are always trying to pass laws against "hate speech" whatever that is, it's you guys who are always trying to pass new gun control laws, it's you guys and your lackeys who instigate conflicts in order to subvert the Constitutions's requirement for a vote from Congress to go to war by using police actions.

It's telling that you end your little quote with "for now."

Originally posted by OpusMarkII
Iran sent Obama model toy drone , thats kinda funny

It's hilarious. I wonder how Obummer took it!

this is why we shouldn't go to war with Iran. We need to address other more important issues. Make the hard decision there if you are so up to challenges. Fix your home.

I refer you to the video from the OP of this other thread about Americas homeless in tent cities for proof by BBC.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=13463099#pid13463099

we can't afford interventionism and corporatism.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by casenately

 

I don't believe in conspiracy theories no, So I shouldn't be allowed to come on here to voice my opinion and to spread some news? You want to take away my freedom of speech? I am well aware of corruption and scandals throughout the powers of the world and I enjoy reading some conspiracy theories, doesn't mean I believe in them.

And it doesn't mean that all conspiracy theorists need to hate America!

So what are your facts to contradict my facts?

edit on 13-2-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)

Noone is proscribing or limiting your right to speak freely.

We also, however, have the right to think that you are a complete fool for your opinions.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


You do realise that Ebook is simply there for courtesy for college courses. It is our text-book for convince for doing blackboard course work instead of having to use a hard copy sitting on our desk.

Go to college and get factual ideas instead of made up fantasy ideas on how you wish things worked - this proves even further why direct democracy is / was detrimental to the idea of a some what stable government.


hattori , your factual basis for this argument has passed and you are now changing the subject. I am sorry you were proved wrong. Changing the subject isnt going to help you.

Does Iran threaten our shores?
no.
Then no war. You want to go to war with iran, get a plane ticket and start shooting once there. tell us how it went. good luck storming the castle.

incidently, I think the only ones that should be able to declare war against iran are generals in the field..not politicians in DC, or internet warriors eating cheetos and saying we need to kill anyone whom says anything rude about the US.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

You do realise that Ebook is simply there for courtesy for college courses. It is our text-book for convince for doing blackboard course book instead of having to use a hard book.

Go to college and get factual ideas instead of made up fantasy ideas on how you wish things worked - this proves even further why direct democracy is / was detrimental to the idea of a some what stable government.

You need to have your proofreader go over your posts better. There has to be a native English speaker somewhere in your boiler room, no?

Your Hebrew or Russian phraseology is showing through in the way you are omitting certain words.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


Not sure what you are speaking of. Post something factual and logical to go with the thread or post nothing at all. You are in no way being conductive to the argument with that kind of post.


Forgive me for typing 100 miles per hour to keep up with the people arguing with me. We are not in person. So if you are not capable of understanding that then you have some growing up to do.

reply to post by milkyway12


you keep sending us to college for validity in anything we say. You are being a little arrogant and condescending. If we could afford an education to begin with or not has no bearing on our ability to think and voice our thoughts.

You have no greater claim on validity just because you have a formal training in something. We all have all the validity required to speak for our lives and our world. The articulation of that will is just part of the natural process of society.


Most of us can read you know. We are typing........there is allot of information and experience outside a class room......?...