1
   

Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 04:10 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Brandon, you're the Momma Angel of the politics threads


^
Name calling.


That's not very nice Brandon, to infer that being compared to Mama Angel is an insult. Pretty damn boorish if you ask me. Why don't you apologize to Mama Angel?

My corect identification if this as an example of name calling has nothing to do with my opinion of Momma Angel. Do you ever make on topic posts here in the politics area, or do you try to win for the liberals by lingering around the real posters making irrelevant snipes? Your teasing, little jibes, no matter how clever, Rolling Eyes do nothing to show that your opinions are correct, and actually suggest the reverse.


sez you Razz
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 04:13 pm
Jeeze, how dull-witted. I'm pointing out, Mr. Atheist Brandon, that your unquestioning faith in any and all programs of Bush and company is the political equivalent of religion--i'm not saying your support him for religious reasons. Either you're being awfully dense, or awfully obtuse.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 04:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
You didn't address anything in that post. In that post you ignore what was already pointed out to you about the deterrant which exists against the irresponsible use of nukes by rogue states.

Your thesis was, I believe that a rogue state would be frightened out of using any nukes it possessed by fear of the world's retribution. I think this is optimistic. History is full of provocative actions by countries which should have known that retribution would follow. The Iranians might pass a few nukes to a terrorist group and then, after millions died, deny involvement. A nuclear fireball destroys a lot of evidence. The world might indeed compile enough evidence to justify an attack in response, but I think that there are people out there, if not in Iran then in the next, or the next country to acquire nukes, who would believe they could get away with it.


Setanta wrote:
You ignore in that post that it has already been pointed out to you that depotic states, unstable states and states sympathetic to terrorists already have nukes. You ignore that in the sixty years since Japan was nuked, nuclear weapons have proliferated exponentially, but have not been used since.

As I said, "we've been lucky," but as the number of all sorts of entities to possess nukes increases and increases, surely the chance that someone somewhere will use one eventually must increase too.




Setanta wrote:
You ignore that the cogent argument advanced than the Persians simply want nukes as a plausible deterrant to Israeli or American objection.

Maybe that's their whole motive, maybe it isn't. But they are sympathetic to terrorists, and their President Ahmadinejad makes some rather ominous sounding statements:

Quote:
Responding to President Bush's claim that Iran was "a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite" he branded the American leader a criminal. To cheers, he said: "Those whose arms are stained up to the elbow with the blood of other nations are now accusing us of violating human rights and freedoms. God willing, we shall drag you to trial."


Source

Even, however, if Iran is to my surprise to be trusted with doomsday weapons, as more and more countries of all shapes and sizes acquire nukes, I maintain that it is common sense that the chance of their use also increases.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Feb, 2006 04:25 pm
and I maintain that it's a little late to be thinking about that **** now.....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 02:52 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
and I maintain that it's a little late to be thinking about that **** now.....

It's never too late to prevent a terrible danger from becoming worse.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 04:56 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
and I maintain that it's a little late to be thinking about that **** now.....

It's never too late to prevent a terrible danger from becoming worse.


And who made the world more dangerous ?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:52 am
freedom4free wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
and I maintain that it's a little late to be thinking about that **** now.....

It's never too late to prevent a terrible danger from becoming worse.


And who made the world more dangerous ?

Are you even reading the thread? We're referring to the danger posed by the proliferation of WMD. Why don't you tell me who is trying to stop WMD proliferation and who is enabling it?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 May, 2006 10:53 am
I hate to revive an old thread,but I have to.

Its now May 7,and there has been no attack on Iran.
I thought we were going to attack in March.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 09:22:21