Plus spray a little windex on his food first ... :rotfl:

Blah, blah, blah

I don't remember his name, the man that is really in charge of Iran that is, but he is even more messed up in his thinking than Ahmadinejad.

He said, "So what if America bombs our installations" "We all get to go to heaven sooner"

You have to be afraid of loonies like that ... they aren't afraid to start a war with the thoughts of virgins in their future.

Here's the guy really in charge:

Especially after his university speech.

The subtlety of the situation isn't about the severity of who gets a nuke but of how we react to the current situation. As I was saying before of Pakistan the freinds and enemies of the West are barely distinguishable except for which one Bush wants us to invade next. Iran's government may be touting extremism but the people of that nation are less extremist than Pakistan. And Skybird, aren't we both agreeing on Pakistan? Isn't that what I was saying? That while we agonize over Iran we allow a power as fundamentally more dangerous to lurk within our political ranks? Thats the point I was making.

Secondly Pakistan has a Sunni majority population, and when you consider Iran is a Shia majority and that these two countries are bordering one another... well nuke with Pakistan... nuke Israel... and the rest of the world is breathing down their neck of course they'd want a nuclear weapon. And while the US effectively gives Pakistan the space to remain in its current situation there is a real possibility that an uncontrollable nation with a nuke that is hostile to Iran will appear suddenly. And I have no doubt that any new extremist leadership that might appear in Pakistan would be a far worse threat than Iran today.

And your point? Conservative religious powers run Iran. Meanwhile in the US the seperation of church and state are being erroded. That it is an Islamic council is irrelavent. You of course ascribe to the notion that Islam is an evil enough thing to be an argument by itself. The point is that it does not matter who is most orthodox but who is most dangerous. And going on what he's said alone isn't much of an argument if you can pull up one 'frightening' quote.

There's this one too:
And where does that quote imply that he is going to start a war? You are inferring a meaning and using the out of context quote as a crutch. If anyone starts a war its America and that will catastrophic and you can't blame Iran for enticing an idiotic administration into waging a foolish war.

The point is why does everyone seem to gleeful over invasion of Iran? It wont work and will just turn the whole middle east situation up to boiling point. Whatever farcical exaggerations of world terrorism which are being spewed now will certainly become more real since the divide between civilized muslim and extremist fighter will shrink.

http://www.freemyspacegraphics.com/G...ny_myspace.gif

fight your own wars israel, why are you dragging the United states into it??:shifty:



you already got the US to attack iraq and afghanistan... now iran???:roll:

can i guess that , syria ,lebanon, jordan, libya, pakistan , suaid arabia , yemen, oman are after iraq and iran??

Aha. :doh:

So our reaction has consequences that travel back through time and make the deed a different one (if so, why our reaction, then)? Or do you say that, as an example, a crime, lets say rape or murder, is no crime if we do not label it as such?

I cannot imagine I am the only one not understanding what you say here. I'm even not sure you even understood yourself.

How subtle do you react to an islamic terror group being supplied with nuclear weapons? And the fact that Sunni leader-state Saudi Arabia would react to the nuclear armament of its Shia arch-rival Iran by seeking it's own nuclear weapons (as they already proclaimed)? And the ongoing missile and nuclear proliferation in general, as alreayd to be seen from Pakistan, Northkorea, and others?

Or make it even easier. If you see me raising a weapon at your direction with the intention to kill you - what subtelties do you do? Argue with me? That is reasonable, before you die. Hope for the best? that is optimistic, before you die. Pray? That is conviction, before you die. Fall on your knees and beg for mercy? That is surrender. You have no guarantee if I would accept it and stop wanting to kill you, and if so, what price you have to pay for living on.

Or wouldn't it be the best idea to try to be faster than me and shoot me before I can shoot you?

If you allow these subtle questions.

Iran can choose between two options. It is free to choose between them. Both options have different consequences. No matter what they choose, the consequences they have to accept to be responsible for, they cannot avoid them. They choose their fate themselves.

The West can choose how to react to Iran in case of compliance, or non-compliance. No matter what it chooses, there will be consequences the West has to accept to be responsible for, it cannot avoid them. It chooses its fate all itself.

that is all. All what is important was said, and many times. Nobody is left in ignorrance. Everybody knows what is going on, and what the stakes are. There is no need to set up another cycle or old repetitions of words. no need for pessimism or optimism, hope or fear.

Do or don't. That subtle it is. And that already is too subtle for many.

well well... someones anti-semetic??:shifty:

While I agree that there is a strong Israeli lobby in US politics, I fail to see them having lurked the Us into Afghanistan. at worse, Afghanistan was a shot from the hip. Concenring Afghanistan I only ask: why Afghanistan after 9/11? the attackers on 9/11 were Saudis, and got payed with Saudi money from the Saudi Dar-el-Maal el Islami-Trust, which is leed and controlled by a Saudi prince who enjoys much respect in the foolish West, Muhammad El Faisal (talking on kissing the hand that stabs you)! Al Quaeda is a Saudi organisation! the foreigners of the (Saudi-payed) green legion battling against the Soviets in Afghanistan, were not much loved by most Afghans, and had been chased away soon after the Soviets gave up. The attack that reached Afghanistan - should have struck Saudi-Arabia instead.

And beyond that, a nuclear-armed Iran not only threatens Israel. It is a threat to all the West, and all the world. May it be due to an escalating nuclear war with Israel, may it be due to supplying Islamic terrorists with nuclear "devices".

how are they a nuclear threat when they have no missile capabilites to even reach the atlantic ocean let alonw any western cities???

BUMP.

????:shifty:

Gee, maybe the fact that they invaded our embassy and took 50 of our people hostage for well over a year had something to do with our feelings on the issue... :roll:

Missles aren't the only means for delivering a nuclear bomb to it's target you know.

And finally from our friends at Fox news:

You make a good point, except that Iran is in the same situation, with political and religious opponents flanking them with nuclear arms. So what do you suggest as the course of action against Iran? Invasion is ridiculous. The current political attitudes towards Iran are ones that barre other forms of copromise and inevitably state that war will happen. The West is intentionally cornering Iran and trying to bully it like it does smaller nations. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, and they don't give up as easily. A war with Iran is the most irresponsible thing that could happen.

The US started the ball rolling on nukes in the mid east 40 years ago with Israel and they associate and do not put presure on Pakistan. Iran's position is a poor one and anyone familiar with history would recognize that Iran cannot and should not trust the US to protect their interests in the region. So where is this going? If war is declared then its a catastrophy that will make Vietnam look reasonable.