The Iran Thread

[Addendum]

The only thing is, the evidence that Iran has WMDs or is making WMDs is lacking strength, as the evidence for Iraq's WMDs was also lacking strength

 

[Spider-Bite]

The only thing is, the evidence that Iran has WMDs or is making WMDs is lacking strength, as the evidence for Iraq's WMDs was also lacking strength

Actually the evidence says that Iran did have an active nuclear weapons program, but it put it on hold in 2003, however they continue to enrich uranium, and are upping their ability to enrich it faster. They are waiting for the right moment to start their program back up again, or they would have dismantled it. They didn't.

I'm not saying war is the solution. It would make things worse. We need to negotiate and offer some concessions. the main concessions we have to make is a promise not to invade if they don't possess nuclear weapons, don't violate international law, and the other side of the coin, is that we have to stop giving Israel the thumbs up to instigate whenever they want. And we have to pressure Israel to disarm it's nukes. It's wrong to get involved in a conflict and tell one side they can have nukes, and the other side they can't. We have effected the balance of power, and now Iran wants an even playing field.

Edit... Plus I was merely refuting that other guy's claim, that "who are we to tell them they can't, when we can?"

 

[EdRyder]

The only thing is, the evidence that Iran has WMDs or is making WMDs is lacking strength, as the evidence for Iraq's WMDs was also lacking strength

Well, You can take always take solace in the fact that this administration has become politically impotent.After the laundry list of Iraq war casualties from within ,theres virtually no one left (of any importance)to fall on their sword for any policy.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Well, You can take always take solace in the fact that this administration has become politically impotent.After the laundry list of Iraq war casualties from within ,theres virtually no one left (of any importance)to fall on their sword for any policy.

I'm not positive but I believe Bush can order an airstrike without congressional approval, even on American soil. It is a scary thought.

 

[EdRyder]

^Ok as I pointed out a few posts back, the joint chiefs just aren't pushing for it.If you learned anything from the lead up to the war with Iraq, it should be that it was a policy the Chiefs were committed to long before Bush was even elected.If you really believe that the final word on war policy begins and ends with any president you're living in a fantasy land.Its ridiculous.Do you really believe men like "Scooter" Libby were able to cherrypick evidence towards a war with Iraq?-*Scratch that* Any President or any one who holds office in any Administration could cherrypick evidence and present it as fact to the Joint Chiefs and every intelligence agency and they're just going to kowtow or "roll over" or, even further, endorse said policy as if their hands were tied?

The buck does not stop "here"

 

[zenile]

I think the American public would be more willing to accept an attack against Iran than the current mess in Iraq. At least with Iran you have someone that is openly threatening hostilities against one of our allies, so no one can accuse GWB of beating the war drums here, Achimedenijad (butchered the spelling I'm sure) has that already covered.

 

[Addendum]

That ally of the US (Israel) is more than capable of handling it. They won a war in 6 damn days, so it's not like they're a pushover. Now, if they need help then I see no problem offering assistance when things get bad.

 

[Marx]

People? Sure. Congress? Considering their previous record, I highly doubt their common sense and their sense of decency.

I think it all comes to trust--you seem to trust that Congress will finally see the light and stand their ground while I wouldn't trust them or any other government sector to protect my goldfish.

I trust in the fact that members of Congress know that it is potentially career suicide to approve another war. They all come up for election sometime JRK.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I think the American public would be more willing to accept an attack against Iran than the current mess in Iraq. At least with Iran you have someone that is openly threatening hostilities against one of our allies, so no one can accuse GWB of beating the war drums here, Achimedenijad (butchered the spelling I'm sure) has that already covered.

Saddam wasn't exactly too fond of Israel either. The only difference really between iran's President and Saddam is that Saddam was making progress in Iraq, where as Armmajehad isn't, although he is not in charge there either.

Iran is much more powerful than Iraq, with a much larger population, which means the violence in the streets would make Iraq look like a Buddhist colony.

 

[Tron5000]

Yes. Let's offer "concessions" to the Iranian leadership. Like, "OK, we're not going to let you wipe out ALL the Jews, but how about just a quarter or a half? Would that work for you?"

Maybe this one: "If you will immediately stop killing our soldiers in this proxy war you are waging on us in Iraq, we'll buy all of our oil from you in the future."

Perhaps this: "Stop enriching uranium for nuclear weapons and we'll send you all brand new, shiny Chevy SUVs that you should have no trouble affording the gas for since you already subsidize it to the rate of pennies a gallon to Iranian consumers."

 

[Addendum]

Maybe this one: "If you will immediately stop killing our soldiers in this proxy war you are waging on us in Iraq, we'll buy all of our oil from you in the future."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

 

[moraldeficiency]

has there been any evidence that this is real other than the original post which was entirely speculation and unnamed sources to begin with?

 

[Tron5000]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

CIA director Michael Hayden:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/30/alqaeda-cia.html

"It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels," he said, "to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period."

 

[Addendum]

And Hayden offers no proof.

 

[Tron5000]

And Hayden offers no proof.

And you offer no proof that Iranian weapons are not killing US soldiers.

Are you of the belief that CIA Director Michael Hayden, General David Petraues and Ambassador Crocker are all maliciously lying to the American public about the Iranian involvement in Iraq? And if so, what would you believe to be their motives for doing so?

 

[Addendum]

The burden of proof is on them. The person making the claim has to prove the claim. In this case, it's the government. The hearer (me) doesn't have to disprove the claim to reject it.

 

[Tron5000]

The burden of proof is on them. The person making the claim has to prove the claim. In this case, it's the government. The hearer (me) doesn't have to disprove the claim to reject it.

So I assume you are refusing to answer the two questions I posed to you. Interesting tactic.

 

[Addendum]

Not my fault if you don't like my response

 

[Tron5000]

Not my fault if you don't like my response

That's not a response to the questions I asked. Let's try this again, shall we?

1. Do you believe that CIA Director Hayden, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are maliciously lying to the American public about Iran's involvement in the death of American soldiers in Iraq?

2. If you believe this to be the case, then what do you believe are the motivations of these three men to engage in this campaign of distributing false information?

 

[Addendum]

I gave you my response Hannity junior.

 

[Tron5000]

I gave you my response Hannity junior.

OK. Since you obviously can not answer a question that is directly posed to you, you have proved that you are incapable of debate. Therefore, consider our conversation ended unless you would actually like to discuss differences of opinion like a big boy, rather than talking around the issue and avoiding questions you don't want to answer.

 

[Addendum]

Your "debate" and "questions" are meaningless. The government made a claim without providing any proof to support it. I am under no obligation to disprove their claim to reject it, so I did. My rejection of the government's claim is not calling them liars or saying they made stuff up.

Move. the ****. On.

 

[Tron5000]

Your "debate" and "questions" are meaningless. The government made a claim without providing any proof to support it. I am under no obligation to disprove their claim to reject it, so I did. My rejection of the government's claim is not calling them liars or saying they made stuff up.

Move. the ****. On.

You're the one who can't answer a simple question. It's either "yes" or "no," but you could not even handle that. You're as spineless as so many jellyfish.

 

[Marx]

Let's all be respectful guys! There's no need for name calling.

 

[Addendum]

You're the one who can't answer a simple question. It's either "yes" or "no," but you could not even handle that. You're as spineless as so many jellyfish.

You're the one that lacks the capacity to handle rejection, and your question is without merit.

You really are Hannity junior so keep whining about me not answering your worthless questions, and I'll just keep laughing

So moving on to the topic of the thread instead of meaningless dribble, has anything else happened?