'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

How about you assume, when I ask a question that I would like to know the answer to the question asked. As usual, you twist the original question to fit the facts you now find. Originally you asserted:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran. They want to invade bad.

In response, I asked:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when I said "invade" you weren't bright enough to pick up from the context that I meant sending ground troops - not bombing or other "military options".

Let me be clear: I assumed that, when you said:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering.

you meant boots on the ground invasion. None of the statements you provided suggest to me that any one of the candidates is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

As to bombing or other strikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, it's pretty clear that, at this point, that's where the Republican candidates are (as well as Obama for that matter). Further, I agree with you to the extent that such an option, even if not intended, creates a real possibility of a land war (What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the Iranians are about to execute a US pilot?). It's clear, however, that the concept of Iran with nukes has pretty much most of the west on edge.

Why? I would suggest it is b/c of the jihadist nature of the governing theocracy. You site Israel as having a nuke as a reason to allow Iran's progress to becoming a nuclear power. The difference, I think, is that Israel is a rational state and will not take actions that would lead to the end of its existence as a state. Not so sure the Iranian govt. has those same "thought" processes. The current Iranian regime operates by an agenda not necessarilly governed by a "cost/benefit" analysis. Rather, it is under a authoritarian theocracy that funds/assists and encourages suicide bombers. If you are unconcerned by their gaining the ability to kill millions quickly, then you either one heartless dude or one impassioned zealot.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

There are a lot of similarities and it is a concern. I agree and I hope that military intervention is ultimately avoided. Even stripping this last statement of your typical hysteria, logical leaps and hyperbole, however, it is much different assertion than your original statement and accusation that unidentified "far right crew" is seeking to put military ground units into and go "balls deep" in Iran.

So ... Let's get the crux. What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that they will show the same restraint that other nuclear nations have done? Are certain that, once developed, they would share the technology with like minded jihadists regimes or groups? Do you think that their possesion of nuclear arms creates a more stable or less stable middle east? Once in possesion of such a weapon is it your believe they present no threat to the US or our allies? If a threat is presented to our allies - Israel, Saudi Arabia, what backing can/should we give them? If we w/draw from the mideast altogether: How do we protect our shipping lines from piracy? What effect will it have on our economy?

B/c of our reliance on foreign oil, our economy is hopelessly entangled in the middle east. Throw in the US commitment to Israel, and there just aren't simple answers. I suggest to you, again, that Paul's simplistic foreign policy is just as dangerous and destabilizing to both regional and world peace as are the "war drums" that you are so fanatical about.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f237/redstout/deflectioncard.jpg

Nice videos.....
The last one was highly edited and a total hoax.
Gimme a break.....

LOL. Coming from you, that's rich. You haven't shown shit, but spouted talking points from dumbasses on the TV and main stream media. You keep talking about Iran and how they are "talking" about wiping the Israelis out and I show you that's exactly what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. BUT....that's deflection?...lololol


...but yeah, this map doesn't mean squat. They aren't systematically wiping out the Arabs and going against a UN resolution.

[Alvin Walton]

So its all about Palestine now??????
This thread has more curves in it than a slinky.

[GMScud]

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

How about you assume, when I ask a question that I would like to know the answer to the question asked. As usual, you twist the original question to fit the facts you now find. Originally you asserted:



In response, I asked:



Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when I said "invade" you weren't bright enough to pick up from the context that I meant sending ground troops - not bombing or other "military options".

Let me be clear: I assumed that, when you said:



you meant boots on the ground invasion. None of the statements you provided suggest to me that any one of the candidates is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

As to bombing or other strikes to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, it's pretty clear that, at this point, that's where the Republican candidates are (as well as Obama for that matter). Further, I agree with you to the extent that such an option, even if not intended, creates a real possibility of a land war (What happens if one of our planes is shot down and the Iranians are about to execute a US pilot?). It's clear, however, that the concept of Iran with nukes has pretty much most of the west on edge.

Why? I would suggest it is b/c of the jihadist nature of the governing theocracy. You site Israel as having a nuke as a reason to allow Iran's progress to becoming a nuclear power. The difference, I think, is that Israel is a rational state and will not take actions that would lead to the end of its existence as a state. Not so sure the Iranian govt. has those same "thought" processes. The current Iranian regime operates by an agenda not necessarilly governed by a "cost/benefit" analysis. Rather, it is under a authoritarian theocracy that funds/assists and encourages suicide bombers. If you are unconcerned by their gaining the ability to kill millions quickly, then you either one heartless dude or one impassioned zealot.





There are a lot of similarities and it is a concern. I agree and I hope that military intervention is ultimately avoided. Even stripping this last statement of your typical hysteria, logical leaps and hyperbole, however, it is much different assertion than your original statement and accusation that unidentified "far right crew" is seeking to put military ground units into and go "balls deep" in Iran.

So ... Let's get the crux. What do you suggest? Are you comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that they will show the same restraint that other nuclear nations have done? Are certain that, once developed, they would share the technology with like minded jihadists regimes or groups? Do you think that their possesion of nuclear arms creates a more stable or less stable middle east? Once in possesion of such a weapon is it your believe they present no threat to the US or our allies? If a threat is presented to our allies - Israel, Saudi Arabia, what backing can/should we give them? If we w/draw from the mideast altogether: How do we protect our shipping lines from piracy? What effect will it have on our economy?

B/c of our reliance on foreign oil, our economy is hopelessly entangled in the middle east. Throw in the US commitment to Israel, and there just aren't simple answers. I suggest to you, again, that Paul's simplistic foreign policy is just as dangerous and destabilizing to both regional and world peace as are the "war drums" that you are so fanatical about.

Nicely done.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No response for any of you?...lol I thought as much. Nothing to say when you know good and god damn well our country is at fault for all of this and will continue to make things worse by meddling in the Middle East.

Yup. We intervened in a short sighted manner to protect our interests and it bit us in the ass and continues to do so.

"At fault for all of this"? I guess we have to disagree on that one. A few other actors have intervened in the Middle East since 1979. But, it's a simplistic assertion that has an element of truth - your favorite.

We "will make things worse by meddling in the Middle East"? Again, I ask you ... do we remove our military and aid from the Middle East? What do you think the consequences would be to the US economy if we did so? What should our ME policy be?

And to be clear, yes ... much of ME policy is driven by oil. It's called dependency and, if you have a realistic plan to make the stability of the ME unimportant to the US, I am all ears. I suggest, if the Straits of Hormuz are closed (as Iran has threatened on occasion) or if Iran attempts to intervene in Iraq after we have gone (to protect the Shia minority or oppose the secular govt. existing).

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

So its all about Palestine now??????
This thread has more curves in it than a slinky.

No, you keep talking about the threat of Iran to Israel, and I'm showing you the true threat of Israel to the Arab nation. The Hamas and Palestine region are backed by Iran and Syria. Iraq was the middle man in all of this.


Iran having a nuke is no more of a threat than Israel having one.


You keep talking about deflecting but yet you deflect over and over and over. You have shown absolutely nothing of substance. Nothing.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No, you keep talking about the threat of Iran to Israel, and I'm showing you the true threat of Israel to the Arab nation. The Hamas and Palestine region are backed by Iran and Syria. Iraq was the middle man in all of this.


Iran having a nuke is no more of a threat than Israel having one.


You keep talking about deflecting but yet you deflect over and over and over. You have shown absolutely nothing of substance. Nothing.

Wow.....could you get any loonier?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There was no point to invade Iraq but we did.

U.N. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There was no point for military actions in Lybia but we did.

U.N. Resolution 2009 outlined support for building a Democracy in Lybia

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Blah, blah, blah...Iran

U.N. News: The issue has been of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What does Iraq, Iran, and Lybia all have in common?

They fit your narrative?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com

All three countries are in the top 10 in oil reserves. This is no coincidence.

Yeah, it is.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Tell me, why are<n't> we talking about air strikes to North Korea?

China

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

How come we aren't steam rolling the warlords in South Africa? Resources. That's why. Everything in life comes back to two things. Money and Power.

I hope you're not suggesting South Africa had no resources.......

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I didn't say we were stealing the oil or that it would be free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/wo...-pursuits.html

Nah, it wasn't about oil.




Oh, you say it's about fanatics with nukes eh? Much like Saddam Hussein?..lol Didn't we hear this same shit back in 2002?




Number of countries Iran has bombed in the past decade- 0
Number of countries the US has bombed in the past decade- 8


Yemen 2002

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

Iraq 2003-present

Afghanistan 2001-present

Pakistan 2007-present

Somalia 2007-8, 2011

Yemen 2009, 2011

Libya 2011

Who's the fanatics with nukes again? I'm confused.

Dude you might want to think about moving.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

LOL. Coming from you, that's rich. You haven't shown shit, but spouted talking points from dumbasses on the TV and main stream media. You keep talking about Iran and how they are "talking" about wiping the Israelis out and I show you that's exactly what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. BUT....that's deflection?...lololol


...but yeah, this map doesn't mean squat. They aren't systematically wiping out the Arabs and going against a UN resolution.

Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Up until 1968, the Jews who lived in Israel - and before that British Palestine - did not refer to themselves as 'Israelis'. They called themselves 'Palestinian Jews'.

Palestinians........trick, please!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

LOL. Coming from you, that's rich. You haven't shown shit, but spouted talking points from dumbasses on the TV and main stream media. You keep talking about Iran and how they are "talking" about wiping the Israelis out and I show you that's exactly what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. BUT....that's deflection?...lololol

...but yeah, this map doesn't mean squat. They aren't systematically wiping out the Arabs and going against a UN resolution.

Didn't realize there were Israeli "death camps" so that they could "systematically wip[e] out the Arabs". Pretty shoddy language given the issues at hand. The map simply shows land acquired. In fact, the muslim population of Israel has grown since 1995 both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the whole (14% in '95, 22% in 08). Statistical Abstract of Israel 2009 - No. 60 Subject 2 - Table No. 2

The Israelis are by no means pure as snow guys and our alliance with them is driven by a number of factors both internal to our national politics and by our desire for a stable govt. ally with in the ME (Say what you want about their politics but, since their establishment in '47, when was the last time Israel had a "regime change" such as has occurred in the various Arab nations in the region).

Israel has not abided by the UN declaration and should do so. At the same time, other than Egypt & Jordan every other Arab nation in the Mid-East is in a state of either declared or undeclared war with Israel. Given that, and though I don't agree whole heartedly with it, I can see their side of the story.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin(edit)

And all of this is relevant to the potential destabilizing effect to the region caused by Iran's potential possesion of nuclear weapns how?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran having a nuke is no more of a threat than Israel having one.

Then why does Ahmadinejad make so many less-than-veiled threats regarding the obliteration of Israel in his speeches?

This should concern anyone in conjunction with a nuclear armed Iran.

Israel is the only thriving Democracy in a cesspool of theocracies.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. Up until 1968, the Jews who lived in Israel - and before that British Palestine - did not refer to themselves as 'Israelis'. They called themselves 'Palestinian Jews'.

Palestinians........trick, please!

Weren't these Arabs living in Palestine/Israel before 1967? During the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th century, there was a small Jewish population living in the area known today as Israel. But there was a much sizable population of Muslims living in that area.

If I am not mistaken, I believe a lot of these native Palestinian Jews lived somewhat peacefully along with the majority Muslim population. It was the immigration of European Jews and the Zionist movement that propelled the conflict between these two groups, along with the growing Muslim nationalist movement of the early 1900s.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No, you keep talking about the threat of Iran to Israel, and I'm showing you the true threat of Israel to the Arab nation. The Hamas and Palestine region are backed by Iran and Syria. Iraq was the middle man in all of this.

Which Arab nation? You do realize there are several?

Iran, of course, is not one of them.