You sure Bush won't be the one to bomb Iran???

On the topic of Iran, nuclear proliferation and the manipulation of people and information…

Some of us have heard of A.Q. Khan

=========

The report reveals that Mr. Khan "provided Iran with centrifuges, technical designs, components, and an 'address book' of suppliers"

==========

“Although preventing nuclear proliferation is presented as a cornerstone of the US foreign policy, recent revelations indicate that the US government helped Kahn to escape justice. Moreover, the CIA is suspected of trying to cover up this enormous mistake.”

---------------

Until the parties in this debate can admit that US political/economic entities have played both sides of every major international conflict in the past century for profit at almost any expense, you will all be case studies for ostrich syndrome.

I’m not waving a pacifist flag here, or saying that the public should accept a lack of principles in the governments practices, just trying to point out that the self-righteous attitudes abounding on both sides are the product of total delusion and are factually baseless.

So what does this bring to bear on the discussion? Maybe it just reinforces the reality that it has been a long, LONG [read: very fucking long] time since the US had any good will to burn in this part of the world, and that the best use of US time and money may be to reverse that trend. Avoiding creation and profiteering from narco states would be a decent start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Oh, and how about the collateral civilian damage(death) caused by the US military.
Shock and awe.

---

Yeah, I know what you are saying. We really shouldn't hit any of those legitimate military targets that just happen to be accidentally located in a residential neighborhood, such as AAA guns mounted on a house, or that T-72 parked over in someones back yard. Of course, our enemies would NEVER use innocent civilians as human shields, or intentionally put them in harms way, right? I mean really, what's the big deal...you know...using a known military command and control bunker as an air raid shelter for civilians, or enemy fighters hiding in the nearest mosque. After all, everyone does it, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Or let's go over Israel shootings of Palestinian children throwing rocks for Christ's sake.

---

You mean the rock-throwing mobs? Yeah, what's a rock-throwing mob, or two. Absolutely harmless, right?...because you know as well as I do that a skull fracture never hurt anyone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Of course our own military would never open fire on things such as their own citizens......like Kent State.

---

Yeah, I guess our military aren't citizens. Aliens? And you know, the courts have never upheld the fact that the guardsman that opened-fire at Kent State were acting in self defense, as if they should actually be allowed to defend himself in the first place! And certainly, those overly-aggressive protesters had every right to be there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

---

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Yeah, I know what you are saying. We really shouldn't hit any of those legitimate military targets that just happen to be accidentally located in a residential neighborhood, such as AAA guns mounted on a house, or that T-72 parked over in someones back yard. Of course, our enemies would NEVER use humans as shields, right? I mean really, what's the big deal...you know...using a known military command and control bunker as an air raid shelter, or enemy fighters hiding in the nearest mosque. After all, everyone does it, right?



You mean the rock-throwing mobs? Yeah, what's a rock-throwing mob, or two. Absolutely harmless, right?...you know as well as I do that a skull fracture never hurt anyone!



Yeah, I guess our military aren't citizens. Aliens? And you know, the courts have never upheld the fact that the guardsman that opened-fired at Kent State were acting in self defense. And certainly, those overly-aggressive protesters had every right to be there in the first place...



-Astro

---

Yeah.....just what I guessed......you're a typical letter of the law boy that everybody hates......so go ahead and shoot some college students for protesting a war just because the college said they couldn't exercise their right to free speech. Streaking was banned too....wanna shoot them too? Astrohole

As far as AAA guns on a mud hut? Nobody gives a shit because the only threat is to the pride of dipshits like yourself and Israel huggers.

Maybe if Israel didn't stomp all over the Palestinians and occupy their land they wouldn't have rocks chucked at them. I could see you shooting a teenager for pitching a rock at you.....Astrohole

Have you written a big check to the US gov lately? You should to be a REAL patriot. If not, put your extra money where your ideals are....give up a ski trip or two to support this war on terror....Astrohole

Yeah! Go home Jew lovers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

Yeah! Go home Jew lovers!

---

NO NO.....then they'll build MORE settlements......got to FLORIDA and NEW YORK Joo lovers.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Yeah.....just what I guessed......you're a typical letter of the law boy that everybody hates......so go ahead and shoot some college students for protesting a war just because the college said they couldn't exercise their right to free speech.

---

Like I said, in that particular incident, the court ruled that the guardsman acted in self defense. Case closed. And you just lost that sub-debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Streaking was banned too....wanna shoot them too? Astrohole

---

Straw man argument. Again, you lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

As far as AAA guns on a mud hut? Nobody gives a shit because the only threat is to the pride of dipshits like yourself

---

Yeah, AAA batteries certainly are no threat to anyone, especially not pilots.

Even when the shit goes up, doesn't hit anything, falls back to earth and hits a house and kills someone down the road. Just blame it on the US. That's easier.

Funny thing, that type of collateral damage never even occurred to you, did it? Why am I not surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

and Israel huggers.

---

"Israel huggers"? I take it you don't like jews. The picture that you are painting of yourself is becoming very clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Maybe if Israel didn't stomp all over the Palestinians and occupy their land they wouldn't have rocks chucked at them. I could see you shooting a teenager for pitching a rock at you.....Astrohole

---

Yeah, if someone started throwing rocks at me, I suppose I could just run away.

If someone was pointing a gun at me, I suppose I could just run away.

Yeah, teenagers are harmless. I should just run away from all of them.

(Note to self: I am not allowed to use deadly force in defense of myself, or anyone else when threatened with death or serious bodily injury should the person threatening me or someone else just happen to be a teenager, to include gang-bangers, criminals, enemy combatants, etc., becease anyone that is under the age of 20 (teenager) is exempt from this level of force)

While I'm at it, if someone was pointing a nuke at me, I suppose I could just run away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Have you written a big check to the US gov lately?

---

As a matter of fact, I mailed it on or about April 1st, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

If not, put your extra money where your ideals are....give up a ski trip or two to support this war on terror....Astrohole

---

Clue time, dumbass. I don't take "ski trips". The Wasatch is my backyard. Why would I wast my money on "ski trips"?

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Like I said, in that particular incident, the court ruled that the guardsman acted in self defense. Case closed. And you just lost that sub-debate.



THAT MAKES IT RIGHT? You are a silly boy



Yeah, AAA batteries certainly are no threat to anyone, especially not pilots.


Don't fly there dumbass



"Israel huggers"? I take it you don't like jews. The picture that you are painting of yourself is becoming very clear.

"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified" (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (2000) published by Verso, p. 3).


Yeah, if someone started throwing rocks at me, I suppose I could just run away.

Rather do that than shoot them....I guess you hate brown people

If someone was pointing a gun at me, I suppose I could just run away.


Maybe YOU deserve it

Yeah, teenagers are harmless. I should just run away from all of them.

With your attitude.....yes you should


While I'm at it, if someone was pointing a nuke at me, I suppose I could just run away.

I think our own country has a corner on the nuclear targeting market


As a matter of fact, I mailed it on or about April 1st, why?


Should have doubled up just out of principle


Clue time, dumbass. I don't take "ski trips". The Wasatch is my backyard. Why would I wast my money on "ski trips"?


With your mountain experience.....get your ass to Afghanistan and quit wasting your life.


-Astro

---

Sounds like the biggest thing threatening you is a bad powder day and imaginary terrorists.....poor baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Yeah - 'cause anything that Hitler read should be immediatly burned!!!!

I've read books by Che Guevara and Mao Tse Tung. Does that make me a communist?

The Prince is about manipulation, not exterminating Jews. You may think manipulating others is bad and we should all just hold hands and pick flowers and stuff, but unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

---

I never said burn. I've read it. I don't believe in burning any books. Go back and see the context that he provides the picture of the book in. Its clear why he put it there. Its also clear that he never read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Oh really.
What's beyond hope are civilizations that rely on a military presence throughout the world to project control and power. It fails time after time.
Maybe YOU have a naive ignorant ethnocentric worldview.

---

Well, when you figure out how to get everyone to agree to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, you let me know... until that time the rest of us will go on living in the real world. The operative word is LIVING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Amnesty hardly has a clean track record in judging what goes on with Palestinian terror groups, and has a history of ignoring what leads to the Israeli actions against terrorists.

---

Very sad but unfortunately absolutely true...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Ruteki

If the Palestinians want to change how this works, they can--Abbas seems to want to, but his Gaza counterparts don't want that to happen. But blurring the distinction between terrorist acts and actions meant to kill terrorists isn't helpful to anyone.

---

To build up on this is a key point when observing that conflict, Hamas is an organization that his hard to consider negotiations with. What can Israel possibly offer Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel? This is the bottom line of the conflict in many cases.

Not that I like Abbas, but he can be prudent and is no dummy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasputin

There is only one side talking openly about USING nukes.

---

And which side was that again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Sounds like the biggest thing threatening you is a bad powder day and imaginary terrorists.....poor baby.

---

Maybe you should stop jerking-off to the Unabomber Manifesto ten times a day.

Imaginary??? Let me guess. You believe that the US government was actually behind the attacks of 9/11.

In the meantime, how about quoting things properly. It really affects, negatively, your credibility. And believe me, you need as much help as you can get in that particular arena.

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvwcom

And as far as "methods", I see it much as you do I expect. But I can imagine being on the Palestinian side and feeling powerless and oppressed, who can say how I'd feel and what I'd be willing to do were it I? Also, it's easy for anyone in the West to label the Palestinians as "terrorists" today... but just remember it was probably just as easy to label America's freedom fighters "terrorists" back in their day. Instead of marching in nice neat columns/rows in fancy color coordinated suits and taking pot shots at each other in organized volleys like "real soldiers" did in their day, the Americans hid behind trees and took "sniper" shots etc. It was considered VERY POOR FORM in their day.

---

So you think in the future, aiming rockets at elementary schools, intentionally blowing up civilian buses and restaurants, and gunning down ambulance crews is going to be considered good form by the civilized world?

Seriously? Do listen to yourself? OH GOD! YOU DO:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvwcom

Are you saying that if Iran (hoping you read my [thought experiment] a couple days ago) had invaded and occupied and oppressed OUR country for a couple generations, and had killed the fathers, brother, sisters, cousins of our youth... And had found ways to nearly remove the ability for counter attack, you don't think a single American would consider those methods to fight back?

---

But do you think that makes it a good thing to intentionally target civilians?

Quote:

---

Hell, some of our own youth walk into schools with satchels of weapons and leave behind dozens of dead students NOW even without the history of that kind of oppression. So to be clear... YES, I think "we" (you, I and our peers) are capable of similar atrocities.

---

What the hell does capability have to do with the morality of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Maybe you should stop jerking-off to the Unabomber Manifesto ten times a day.

Imaginary??? Let me guess. You believe that the US government was actually behind the attacks of 9/11.

In the meantime, how about quoting things properly. It really affects, negatively, your credibility. And believe me, you need as much help as you can get in that particular arena.

-Astro

---

Imaginary in the fact that many more people die every year from pool drownings than 9/11.(see below)

So nimrods like yourself go into a "patriotic" knee-jerk frenzy, bombing the shit out of Iraq. Personally, I can not even name ONE victim of 9/11 even with all the hoopla but can name several victims of drunk drivers. So how about we concentrate of issues of consequence instead of the occasional wacko?

Terrorism has been shown to be a product of occupation. Quit occupation and support of occupation and we will not be a target to the degree we are now.

Right now we are the world bully with a military base on every corner. Imagine a nice North Korean base next to SLC? How would you like that?






Six people drown in U.S. pools every day. Many of these pools are public facilities staffed with certified professional lifeguards.

Centers for Disease Control


Drowning is the 4th leading cause of accidental death in the United States, claiming 4,000 lives annually. Approximately one-third are children under the age of 14.

American Institute for Preventive Medicine


Drowning is the second-leading cause of unintentional, injury-related death among children under the age of 15.

National Center for Health Statistics




A child can drown in the time it takes to answer a phone.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission


19% of drowning deaths involving children occur in public pools with certified lifeguards present.

Drowning Prevention Foundation


A swimming pool is 14 times more likely than a motor vehicle to be involved in the death of a child age 4 and under.

Orange County California Fire Authority


Children under five and adolescents between the ages of 15-24 have the highest drowning rates.

American Academy of Pediatrics


For every child who drowns, four are hospitalized for near drowning.

American Academy of Pediatrics


An estimated 5,000 children ages 14 and under are hospitalized due to near-drownings each year; 15 percent die in the hospital and as many as 20 percent suffer severe, permanent neurological disability.

Foundation for Aquatic Injury Prevention


Of all preschoolers who drown, 70 percent are in the care of one or both parents at the time of the drowning and 75 percent are missing from sight for five minutes or less.

Orange County, CA, Fire Authority


In 10 states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington - drowning surpasses all other causes of death to children age 14 and under.

Orange County, CA, Fire Authority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Imagine a nice North Korean base next to SLC? How would you like that?

---

Save our Canyons would fuck 'em up. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Terrorism has been shown to be a product of occupation. Quit occupation and support of occupation and we will not be a target to the degree we are now.

---

You mean like the Israelis occupying Palestine, right?

Yeah, Israelis should just give into the terrorists and leave. :yourock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

So you think in the future, aiming rockets at elementary schools, intentionally blowing up civilian buses and restaurants, and gunning down ambulance crews is going to be considered good form by the civilized world?

Seriously? Do listen to yourself? OH GOD! YOU DO:


But do you think that makes it a good thing to intentionally target civilians?


What the hell does capability have to do with the morality of it?

---

Your arguments are quite persuasive, but I bet your ancestors commited a few atrocities against blacks or Native Americans. You seem to think you're moral HOWEVER......thrown into the same environment as a Palestinian I would venture to say your legalistic outlook on other cultures would put you at the forefront of the terrorist movement. (similar to the preachers who rail against homos while in the mean time are poking the little boys)

I say we should got-damned nuke em' all...Israeli included. Bunch of faggots!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Imaginary in the fact that many more people die every year from pool drownings than 9/11.(see below)

---

I've heard that (flawed) argument many times before. Really, you should try to come up with some new, original material instead of grabbing old bleeding heart talking points off of the interweb.

It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever to compare ACCIDENTAL drownings in the United States with INTENTIONAL terrorist attacks that occur on a world-wide basis. To do so demonstrates, to a high degree, just how far out-of-touch with reality that you really are.

On a similar note, the ones that use the "drowning argument" are usually the same ones that also use the "body count" argument. For example, "we have lost more lives reacting to 9/11 than we actually lost on 9/11 itself."

However, by using the flawed "body count" argument, then one would have to argue that we should never have entered World War II in the Pacific...because we certainly lost more lives during the course of the Pacific Campaign then we lost at Pearl Harbor on December 7th.

Furthermore, back to the drowning, no doubt that people drowned prior to December 7th. And no doubt, it was a larger number then the number of lives lost, at Pearl Harbor, on December 7th.

Maybe you don't have a problem with Iran producing nuclear weapons? Or, maybe you are just opposed to the idea. But it seems to me that you won't hold them accountable for doing so...because it's only FAIR...because if we have them, and if Israel has them, then of course, Iran has a right to them also. No?

You throw out a ton of irrelevance, smoke and mirrors, but you have not addressed the main point, the main question. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then what do YOU suggest that WE do about it? What? Anything?

Please, tell me, I'm all ears.

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

Your arguments are quite persuasive, but I bet your ancestors commited a few atrocities against blacks or Native Americans. You seem to think you're moral HOWEVER......thrown into the same environment as a Palestinian I would venture to say your legalistic outlook on other cultures would put you at the forefront of the terrorist movement. (similar to the preachers who rail against homos while in the mean time are poking the little boys)

---

Then in the same spirit of stereotyping and projection I would have to say that you view yourself as morally superior to those with whom you disagree. This is obvious since you assume that a perceived moral superiority is the impetus behind others beliefs on this topic and you feel that creating a morally equivalency between their beliefs and the actions of terrorists(oh shit! did I just give away my position on this topic?) in some way passes for an argument and discredits their position.

How can you approach this subject with any credibility when your self-inflated morality is on display like this? Do you really expect anyone to accept you as an honest player in this debate when your biases are out there for everyone to see?

Shit dude. You've completely shot yourself in the foot on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Then in the same spirit of stereotyping and projection I would have to say that you view yourself as morally superior to those with whom you disagree. This is obvious since you assume that a perceived moral superiority is the impetus behind others beliefs on this topic and you feel that creating a morally equivalency between their beliefs and the actions of terrorists(oh shit! did I just give away my position on this topic?) in some way passes for an argument and discredits their position.

How can you approach this subject with any credibility when your self-inflated morality is on display like this? Do you really expect anyone to accept you as an honest player in this debate when your biases are out there for everyone to see?

Shit dude. You've completely shot yourself in the foot on this one.

---

I claim no moral superiority. I'm sure I would be right beside you trying to kill Americans if we were young males in Iraq seeing our country torn apart by an unwelcomed guest.
A patriot like yourself who would no doubt be a devout Muslim....think?
You a fundamentalist Christian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

I claim no moral superiority. I'm sure I would be right beside you trying to kill Americans if we were young males in Iraq seeing our country torn apart by an unwelcomed guest.
A patriot like yourself who would no doubt be a devout Muslim....think?
You a fundamentalist Christian?

---

Wow. And I thought Dexter was dumb.

You're even more special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

I'm sure I would be right beside you trying to kill Americans if we were young males in Iraq seeing our country torn apart by an unwelcomed guest.

---

You just don't get it.

In the above scenario of yours, you conveniently left out the foreign fighter standing between the two of you, the one that crossed the border from Syria...an Al-Qaida operative...advising, training, encouraging, and escalating the conflict to a level far beyond the control of the Iraqi government.

-Astro

This guy has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid except on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by timvwcom

And as far as "methods", I see it much as you do I expect. But I can imagine being on the Palestinian side and feeling powerless and oppressed, who can say how I'd feel and what I'd be willing to do were it I? Also, it's easy for anyone in the West to label the Palestinians as "terrorists" today... but just remember it was probably just as easy to label America's freedom fighters "terrorists" back in their day. Instead of marching in nice neat columns/rows in fancy color coordinated suits and taking pot shots at each other in organized volleys like "real soldiers" did in their day, the Americans hid behind trees and took "sniper" shots etc. It was considered VERY POOR FORM in their day.

---

So you think in the future, aiming rockets at elementary schools, intentionally blowing up civilian buses and restaurants, and gunning down ambulance crews is going to be considered good form by the civilized world?

---

That was not my point. It was a way to show a different personalized perspective on acceptance of violence leading to an end. You've cropped the first part that mentions the relative perspective of each side... and leads to my point here of "But I can imagine being on the Palestinian side and feeling powerless and oppressed, who can say how I'd feel and what I'd be willing to do were it I?"

I THINK you are somehow claiming that were it you who were the oppressed Palestinian, you would not revert to the practice of taking innocent life to try and win the struggle? Even if all other methods were effectively countered by the occupier, is that correct? Are you sure there is no example where you would consider taking an innocent life to win a struggle... Are you REALLY SURE?

I'd suggest that you are viewing their conflict from what is probably a permanently safe position/perspective having been born and raised in the Western world. I think I can safely assume you have not had parents, brothers/sisters or sons killed by an occupying force, and it might be hard or impossible for me to try and make my point with you secure in a "fortress" perspective reinforced by all your lifes experiences.

So let me try this... I'm taking a leap to an "unearthly" example to try and jar the perspective loose as it were. (Please don't laugh too hard) Imagine as somewhat similar scenario to the recent movie "War of the Worlds"... (I'm hoping you saw it?) An intelligent non-earthling form of life has invaded earth and is now occupying your state and city. They have displaced your government, killed those any have tried to oppose them... and they intend to stay and rule you forever as far as you know. The technology in their weapons of war are practically invincible to our weapons and counter measures... A parent of yours was left to die when access to the hospital was blocked, your brother and his son were killed in the violent struggles after the invasion. Your son is missing... You don't know if you'll ever see him again.

Since attacking their war machines is useless, attempts have been made to find weaknesses in the rest of their infrastructure. It's been learned that the shuttle vehicles from the earths surface to their orbiting space vehicles used to move the non-armed forces aliens (I said no laughing!!!) are not as well protected... and with the aliens use of humans for menial tasks in their colonies, there are methods of smuggling bombs onto those shuttle vehicles to kill some aliens and inflict some pain on their side. A world wide insurgency has sprung up to try and fight off the occupiers...

You are in a position to help, but it involves killing the non-combatant aliens... What do you do???

(I reserve the right to claim tomorrow that I was shit-faced drunk when I came up with this example!!! :p )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

You just don't get it.

In the above scenario of yours, you conveniently left out the foreign fighter standing between the two of you, the one that crossed the border from Syria...an Al-Qaida operative...advising, training, encouraging, and escalating the conflict to a level far beyond the control of the Iraqi government.

-Astro

---

Kind of like the Saudi fighters we trained in Afghanistan to repel the soviets?

Or Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Iran Contra, putting Saddam into power.

You just don't get it.

How about Blackwater operating at a level far beyond the law of Iraq?

How about the CIA overthrowing the Iran government in 1953 over nationalization of the oil industry.

Oh and we were way too morally superior to resort to bombing women and children in Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

And way too morally superior to those terrorists to resort to torture during interrogation.

Not basing an argument on a moral basis as would seem to suit Rubicon, we are fools to support 17 million Jews over the billions of Muslims. Businesswise we would do well to befriend the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. Perhaps helping Iran become nuclear to at least give them a sense of parity with the Jewish state. If not, then Israel should be forced by sanctions and bombing if necessary to full nuclear disarmament. They fail to respond to UN mandates like any rogue state.

Afghanistan should be assisted with poppy cultivation because any moral argument aside, there is worldwide demand for opium. Freemarket economics should be allowed to flourish. Agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Genius

Wow. And I thought Dexter was dumb.

You're even more special.

---

And you're obviously a winner with your Darth avatar:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You may not be dumb but you're definitely a nerd.