Iran gets.. The Bomb

[VaYank5150]

You know this how?

Maybe he doesn't live his life in fear of everything, unlike the neo-cons?

Dishonest reply again.

Fear has nothing to do with My questions.

How does he know that Iran won't bomb anything? They have said it to him? They have made promise that they won't? He has promised that they won't?

Because they know of the consequences?

 

[Darkwind]

All this hype! Iran is not going to bomb anyone.

You know this how?

are they suicidal? if not they won't be bombing anyone

They told you that they believe it would be suicidal to bomb something or someone?

 

[Darkwind]

Maybe he doesn't live his life in fear of everything, unlike the neo-cons?

Dishonest reply again.

Fear has nothing to do with My questions.

How does he know that Iran won't bomb anything? They have said it to him? They have made promise that they won't? He has promised that they won't?

Because they know of the consequences?

They told you that they fear the consequences? Given the weak stance of the world, why would they believe there are even consequences?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You know this how?

Only Israel and its stooges are hyping the bomb.

Answer My question.

How do you know that Iran is not going to bomb anyone?

Iran has never threatened anyone. They say that no one should have the bomb. Why would they have any interest in bombing anyonel?

 

[HUGGY]

Iran gets.. The Bomb


Israel building bomb shelters for six minute war...have second thoughts on how they have treated Arabs.

 

[blu]

You know this how?

are they suicidal? if not they won't be bombing anyone

They told you that they believe it would be suicidal to bomb something or someone?

its obvious. the non-deployed of america's military + the entire israel army would be on a one way flight to iran if they bombed anyone and all the currrent PC stuff holding israel back would be gone

 

[Navy1960]

BWAHAHAHAHAH.....so, you simply change the definition (tweak it) of WMD and BINGO, we found them.....what a ******* joke.

EDIT: Navy1960, I have read your posts...you are smarter than to believe this goal post moving bullshit. Perhaps you are simply blinded by partisanship?

First, let me say this, to outright dismiss the security concerns assocaited with the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a very dangerous thing to do. I fail to see in my post where I actually said, that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict. I was pointing out though that WMDs did exist there, and were found there regardless of the condition in which they were found. I have a feeling that the nuclear ambitions of Iran have more to do with the leaderships Ambitions more so than the actual people of Iran and the main focus of any policy towards that nation would be to support the people of Irans movement towards freedom in whatever way we can. I simply stated a fact Yank that WMD's have become a political tool for the left and the right to toss around when in fact they do exist and have been used in the past. I stand by my original belief that the Bush Administrations reasoning for going to Iraq was flawed to begin with , but having done so the Bush Administration should have made it clear that the goals were changed from the outset after only discovering a small number of Chemical weapons. On a positive note though, I believe that the removal of a sadistic dictator was and still is a good thing for the people of Iraq. You see Yank I come from a different war fighting school I suppose, and would have made it clear from the outset what the goals were, and once reached, then removed myself from that region knowing its history for ethnic and religeous conflict. The talk of WMD's in general needs to be addressed on some level because, you and I both know that Iran is the major supplier for weapons of all sorts to groups that are bent on religeous hatred and to have such weapons in the hands of these people would only embolden them to use them. Those sorts of things however start with policy that is based on knowing where we are going, what are goals are, and once reached remove ourselves from that commitment and let the task of nation buildng be left to those that have an interest in the nations namely its citizens.

 

[Darkwind]

Only Israel and its stooges are hyping the bomb.

Answer My question.

How do you know that Iran is not going to bomb anyone?

Iran has never threatened anyone. They say that no one should have the bomb. Why would they have any interest in bombing anyonel?

Iran threatens no one?

Wow.

 

[Darkwind]

are they suicidal? if not they won't be bombing anyone

They told you that they believe it would be suicidal to bomb something or someone?

its obvious. the non-deployed of america's military + the entire israel army would be on a one way flight to iran if they bombed anyone and all the currrent PC stuff holding israel back would be gone

I take you you can't comprehend what is being discussed.

When has Iran stated that they will not bomb someone? Given the fact that they have openly stated that they are willing to destroy Israel, your entire belief that they will be harmless if they have the bomb is a sad commentary on your ability to think.

Have a nice day.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Answer My question.

How do you know that Iran is not going to bomb anyone?

Iran has never threatened anyone. They say that no one should have the bomb. Why would they have any interest in bombing anyonel?

Iran threatens no one?

Wow.

Where is the threat?

 

[VaYank5150]

BWAHAHAHAHAH.....so, you simply change the definition (tweak it) of WMD and BINGO, we found them.....what a ******* joke.

EDIT: Navy1960, I have read your posts...you are smarter than to believe this goal post moving bullshit. Perhaps you are simply blinded by partisanship?

First, let me say this, to outright dismiss the security concerns assocaited with the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a very dangerous thing to do. I fail to see in my post where I actually said, that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict. I was pointing out though that WMDs did exist there, and were found there regardless of the condition in which they were found. I have a feeling that the nuclear ambitions of Iran have more to do with the leaderships Ambitions more so than the actual people of Iran and the main focus of any policy towards that nation would be to support the people of Irans movement towards freedom in whatever way we can. I simply stated a fact Yank that WMD's have become a political tool for the left and the right to toss around when in fact they do exist and have been used in the past. I stand by my original belief that the Bush Administrations reasoning for going to Iraq was flawed to begin with , but having done so the Bush Administration should have made it clear that the goals were changed from the outset after only discovering a small number of Chemical weapons. On a positive note though, I believe that the removal of a sadistic dictator was and still is a good thing for the people of Iraq. You see Yank I come from a different war fighting school I suppose, and would have made it clear from the outset what the goals were, and once reached, then removed myself from that region knowing its history for ethnic and religeous conflict. The talk of WMD's in general needs to be addressed on some level because, you and I both know that Iran is the major supplier for weapons of all sorts to groups that are bent on religeous hatred and to have such weapons in the hands of these people would only embolden them to use them. Those sorts of things however start with policy that is based on knowing where we are going, what are goals are, and once reached remove ourselves from that commitment and let the task of nation buildng be left to those that have an interest in the nations namely its citizens.

Navy....you are 100% correct in that YOU never stated "that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict". However, you referenced the story in your post and built upon it, which led me to believe that you agree with the content of said story. Especially since you in no way, shape or form denounced the findings with the report. Do you understand how I, or someone else may have misunderstood your rationale for using the story in your post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They told you that they believe it would be suicidal to bomb something or someone?

its obvious. the non-deployed of america's military + the entire israel army would be on a one way flight to iran if they bombed anyone and all the currrent PC stuff holding israel back would be gone

I take you you can't comprehend what is being discussed.

When has Iran stated that they will not bomb someone? Given the fact that they have openly stated that they are willing to destroy Israel, your entire belief that they will be harmless if they have the bomb is a sad commentary on your ability to think.

Have a nice day.

Iran never stated that it would destroy Israel.

Source?

 

[VaYank5150]

Answer My question.

How do you know that Iran is not going to bomb anyone?

Iran has never threatened anyone. They say that no one should have the bomb. Why would they have any interest in bombing anyonel?

Iran threatens no one?

Wow.

Has Iran threatened you personally? Have they threatened to unleash their arsenal upon the US? Where is this memo? Email? Phone conversation transcript? ANYTHING?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

are they suicidal? if not they won't be bombing anyone

They told you that they believe it would be suicidal to bomb something or someone?

its obvious. the non-deployed of america's military + the entire israel army would be on a one way flight to iran if they bombed anyone and all the currrent PC stuff holding israel back would be gone

Not only that but Russia and China would drop Iran like a glowing potato.

 

[The Rabbi]

Iran has never threatened anyone. They say that no one should have the bomb. Why would they have any interest in bombing anyonel?

Iran threatens no one?

Wow.

Has Iran threatened you personally? Have they threatened to unleash their arsenal upon the US? Where is this memo? Email? Phone conversation transcript? ANYTHING?

Really, a subscription to a newspaper, any newspaper, would make your posts much more intelligent and informed. Does the U.S. Embassy mean anything to you? How about Hezbollah? Does the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" ring a bell?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

How many countries have " THE BOMB"? How many countries have USED "THE BOMB"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Iran threatens no one?

Wow.

Has Iran threatened you personally? Have they threatened to unleash their arsenal upon the US? Where is this memo? Email? Phone conversation transcript? ANYTHING?

Really, a subscription to a newspaper, any newspaper, would make your posts much more intelligent and informed. Does the U.S. Embassy mean anything to you? How about Hezbollah? Does the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" ring a bell?

" Does the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" ring a bell?"

Yeah, that is a "mistranslation" by MEMRI which is a card carrying member of Israel's BS machine.

 

[Navy1960]

BWAHAHAHAHAH.....so, you simply change the definition (tweak it) of WMD and BINGO, we found them.....what a ******* joke.

EDIT: Navy1960, I have read your posts...you are smarter than to believe this goal post moving bullshit. Perhaps you are simply blinded by partisanship?

First, let me say this, to outright dismiss the security concerns assocaited with the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a very dangerous thing to do. I fail to see in my post where I actually said, that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict. I was pointing out though that WMDs did exist there, and were found there regardless of the condition in which they were found. I have a feeling that the nuclear ambitions of Iran have more to do with the leaderships Ambitions more so than the actual people of Iran and the main focus of any policy towards that nation would be to support the people of Irans movement towards freedom in whatever way we can. I simply stated a fact Yank that WMD's have become a political tool for the left and the right to toss around when in fact they do exist and have been used in the past. I stand by my original belief that the Bush Administrations reasoning for going to Iraq was flawed to begin with , but having done so the Bush Administration should have made it clear that the goals were changed from the outset after only discovering a small number of Chemical weapons. On a positive note though, I believe that the removal of a sadistic dictator was and still is a good thing for the people of Iraq. You see Yank I come from a different war fighting school I suppose, and would have made it clear from the outset what the goals were, and once reached, then removed myself from that region knowing its history for ethnic and religeous conflict. The talk of WMD's in general needs to be addressed on some level because, you and I both know that Iran is the major supplier for weapons of all sorts to groups that are bent on religeous hatred and to have such weapons in the hands of these people would only embolden them to use them. Those sorts of things however start with policy that is based on knowing where we are going, what are goals are, and once reached remove ourselves from that commitment and let the task of nation buildng be left to those that have an interest in the nations namely its citizens.

Navy....you are 100% correct in that YOU never stated "that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict". However, you referenced the story in your post and built upon it, which led me to believe that you agree with the content of said story. Especially since you in no way, shape or form denounced the findings with the report. Do you understand how I, or someone else may have misunderstood your rationale for using the story in your post?

First, let me say this, I have no reason to denounce the DoD's report on those 500 chemical munitions that were found and have found little evidence to suggest it is untrue other than the fact that the as stated in the report the munitions were degraded, and that they were perhaps from old stockpiles. I do see your point however, and as I tend to sometimes post things that are of the generic sort. lol it kind of gets me stuck there. What I wanted people to come away with though is that somtimes lost in talk about WMDs is the fact that over 100 thousand of Iraqs people died as the result of the use of chemical munitions (a.k.a. WMDs). I do think that regardless of anyones politcal stripe, hopefully we can all agree that the removal of those responsbile for the use of those munitions was and still is a good thing for the citizens of Iraq. I think we can agree on that and still be skeptical of the Bush Administrations reasoning for drawing this nation into that conflict.

 

[VaYank5150]

Iran threatens no one?

Wow.

Has Iran threatened you personally? Have they threatened to unleash their arsenal upon the US? Where is this memo? Email? Phone conversation transcript? ANYTHING?

Really, a subscription to a newspaper, any newspaper, would make your posts much more intelligent and informed. Does the U.S. Embassy mean anything to you? How about Hezbollah? Does the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" ring a bell?

Do I need to draw you a picture? When did Iran threaten to attack the United States? Please save me the time, and simply include your source in your response.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

First, let me say this, to outright dismiss the security concerns assocaited with the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a very dangerous thing to do. I fail to see in my post where I actually said, that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict. I was pointing out though that WMDs did exist there, and were found there regardless of the condition in which they were found. I have a feeling that the nuclear ambitions of Iran have more to do with the leaderships Ambitions more so than the actual people of Iran and the main focus of any policy towards that nation would be to support the people of Irans movement towards freedom in whatever way we can. I simply stated a fact Yank that WMD's have become a political tool for the left and the right to toss around when in fact they do exist and have been used in the past. I stand by my original belief that the Bush Administrations reasoning for going to Iraq was flawed to begin with , but having done so the Bush Administration should have made it clear that the goals were changed from the outset after only discovering a small number of Chemical weapons. On a positive note though, I believe that the removal of a sadistic dictator was and still is a good thing for the people of Iraq. You see Yank I come from a different war fighting school I suppose, and would have made it clear from the outset what the goals were, and once reached, then removed myself from that region knowing its history for ethnic and religeous conflict. The talk of WMD's in general needs to be addressed on some level because, you and I both know that Iran is the major supplier for weapons of all sorts to groups that are bent on religeous hatred and to have such weapons in the hands of these people would only embolden them to use them. Those sorts of things however start with policy that is based on knowing where we are going, what are goals are, and once reached remove ourselves from that commitment and let the task of nation buildng be left to those that have an interest in the nations namely its citizens.

Navy....you are 100% correct in that YOU never stated "that finding chemical munitions in Iraq somehow made whole the reasoning for the Bush Administrations forray into that conflict". However, you referenced the story in your post and built upon it, which led me to believe that you agree with the content of said story. Especially since you in no way, shape or form denounced the findings with the report. Do you understand how I, or someone else may have misunderstood your rationale for using the story in your post?

First, let me say this, I have no reason to denounce the DoD's report on those 500 chemical munitions that were found and have found little evidence to suggest it is untrue other than the fact that the as stated in the report the munitions were degraded, and that they were perhaps from old stockpiles. I do see your point however, and as I tend to sometimes post things that are of the generic sort. lol it kind of gets me stuck there. What I wanted people to come away with though is that somtimes lost in talk about WMDs is the fact that over 100 thousand of Iraqs people died as the result of the use of chemical munitions (a.k.a. WMDs). I do think that regardless of anyones politcal stripe, hopefully we can all agree that the removal of those responsbile for the use of those munitions was and still is a good thing for the citizens of Iraq. I think we can agree on that and still be skeptical of the Bush Administrations reasoning for drawing this nation into that conflict.

We helped Saddam to develop those weapons in the FIRST PLACE! We ALSO helped put Saddam in POWER in the first place. We need to quit meddeling in other countries affairs because we always come out smelling like shit!