Iranians digging their own grave... and ours.

It would be a hard case to make. You've added a canard "without posing a real threat" that were not part of my original scenario. Can we please keep it honest?

Secondly, I'm most certainly willing to make that sacrifice. If someone walks up and threatens to kill my family, I'm going out. Period, end of story. I care a lot more about my family than the "feelings" or "well being" of someone that threatens my family.

I think it's a bit sleezy that you would let your own family die without doing anything, but there are people like that in the world. I'm not one of them.

 

Although a nuclear conflict with multiple nuclear explosions would probably mean a lot of other far reaching consequences; such as radiation, etc, I think you're right. If Bush's goal was to have a military presence in the region in order to stabilize the region for the purpose of continued oil flow, he may instead be bringing about more turmoil in the region.

I'm sure there's a lot we don't know that is going on behind the scenes that only the intelligence community would know about, but still, I think the US and allies are taking some big risks for questionable reasons.

 

Your point was that sometimes our elected officials meet with undesirables in the course of their duties?

I had no idea you were trying to make that point.

 

Thank you for your advice on how we must think deeply about this. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that Iran is a dictatorship hell hole ran by an immoral sick bastard leader. My eyes are opened! I cannot thank you enough for this advice.

 

In response to your original statement, if someone threatened my family and I felt they meant it, I would make sure they felt repercussions from that statement. My addition to your analogy was just meant to show that even in that case, there are differing perceptions of the situation, that you think Iran is a threat, and that I don't. In any case, I call it a wash, and think it places us back at square one :-/.

 

Weren't there some questions as to the current leader of Iran being directly involved in the embassy takeover back in the late 70's? Did anyone else see something about that?

 

I keep pulling you up on that BS GTech, as explained very clearly by Galloway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bEhN7_abc

You will never listen to it because it contradicts the BS that you prefer to hear from dumb idiots like Hannity and O'Reilly, amongst many other fools.

 

This! You put it into words much better than I would have been able to.

 

There were. The info I saw at the time sure made a strong argument that it was indeed him. I don't know what happened to it. Not that it would matter too much. After all, palestinian people actually elected a terrorist organization as their country's leadership.

 

Galloway is a tool, bought and paid for by the very people you represent. He has no credibility.

I've previously corrected you on your defense of the man in charge of the largest state sponsor of terrorism (any wonder why you support him?) where experts have clearly concluded his calls for genocide.

Don't make me pull up that link. Don't make me pull up the UN resolution regarding his incitement of genocide.

These are the morals that define you, AGS. You stand behind, act as a tool, and dishonestly mis-represent everything when it comes to those threatening terrorist activities and genocide.

When one of your buds blows something up, you immediately rush to the forum to absolve them.

This is you, AGS. This the person you are.

 

Wow AGS, I love that video. Especially for the part about Pakistan and Israel not really being appropriate for holding nuclear weapons, a point I was making earlier.

 

This may be true for some and not for others, opinions and beliefs being what they are. I would say there are those that would consider many of our past and, especially, current president to be a terrorist too, just on a bigger scale.

Some plant carbombs, others mine a harbor (the Managua, Nicaragua harbor specifically). Some blow up a building with homemade explosives, others blow up a city with an A-bomb.

Many innocent people die in the process.

It's all relative.

 

Quit the rhetoric GTech and listen to what he says, it's only a 5 minute audio clip, I'm sure that even someone of your limited intelligence can manage that.

Thanks buddy. I have an even better one for you that I posted here. I'll dig it up for you.

 

No rhetoric. He is a paid islamist tool. The only difference between you and him, is that he begs for money from those he represents.

 

It's very much true, however you look at it or whatever moral equivalence is thrown at it. Hamas is a designated terrorist group. They have conducted countless terrorist activities resulting in the deaths of thousands of Jews. Their stated goal is the destruction of Isreal and killing Jews.

Doesn't seem like a gray matter area for me.

 

This is a 42 minute clip and is excellent, none of the crazy gang replied to it. Well worth a listen.

It is a debate for and against attacking Iran.

Galloway pwns the scumbag warmongering neocon supporting idiot.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=444813

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

Does anyone have substantiative proof that Ahmadinejad has committed terrorism?

 

I'd be interested in seeing any substantiated proof that ahmadinejad hasn't committed terrorism.

He's the president of the largest state sponsor of terrorism out there. Supposedly was involved in the capture of US citizens during the late 70s. Illegally detained soldiers from AGS country, and AGS actually defended Iran over it.

Shipments of sniper rifles sold to Iran have shown up in Iraq. Iran has trained terrorists to go into Iraq and fight the soldiers you supposedly support. Iran has provided IEDs and other materials to terrorists in Iraq.

I'm not sure if he ever earned Eagle Scout though.

 

This bigger clip is really amazing, AGS. They keep trying to make points and compare the American debater's points to other countries, and he doesn't want to discuss it. I mean, the structure of the debate is very biased to begin with, but this guy is getting smacked.