|
On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader.
Did you not pay attention to the massive street protests amidst the contested election in 2009?
|
On December 16 2011 13:08 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader. Did you not pay attention to the massive street protests amidst the contested election in 2009?
I wanted to put "elected" in quotes, but thought that might look badly toward Iranians, as in they don't have a "real" democracy. And just because there are protests, doesn't mean he isn't elected by a majority. Look at the tea party in America. Does that mean Obama wasn't actually elected by a majority (even though, technically, you don't need to be in our electoral system)? Or Bush/Gore 2000 is an even better example (controversial election).
|
On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader.
Ahmandinejad has so little power though. It all rests in the hands of Khomennei (is it Khomennei?) and the rest of the council. They use AJ as a front to stir up drama and create attention, but I highly doubt he would ever be placed in charge of anything military related.
|
On December 16 2011 13:14 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader. Ahmandinejad has so little power though. It all rests in the hands of Khomennei (is it Khomennei?) and the rest of the council. They use AJ as a front to stir up drama and create attention, but I highly doubt he would ever be placed in charge of anything military related.
This is true, but that sort of even furthers the point. The people in power in Iran deliberately send a guy out into the world to spew a lot of anti-American/Western sentiment. If they didn't want that, they could definitely make him stop.
Again, whether this truly represents the "will of the people" in Iran is a different question, and frankly we've derailed this thread enough, I think.
|
On December 16 2011 13:08 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader. Did you not pay attention to the massive street protests amidst the contested election in 2009?
That should be even more troubling to proponents of Ron Paul's plan of "lets let them get the bomb." They're not a democracy, they don't have a problem with rigging elections or shooting their citizens in the street, and they may be on the verge of their own Arab Spring and then nobody knows who will seize power.
|
GOD DAMN FOX FUCKING NEWS IS SOOOO BIASED
as you guys probably know by now i'm liberal, but the amount of disrespect show to ron paul as he's polling 2nd in iowa, a mere POINT behind gingrich.
mentioned in passing on the post debate analysis after the FUCKING "3rd tier candidates" get more time than him? Seriously? It's sooooo bullshit. Not to mention his last question was around 10:20. 40 minutes before the end of the debate. ha
|
They can hate on Ron Paul all they want! But if he takes first in Iowa you wont be able to deny the power that the man has.
. REVOLUTION!!!!!
|
On December 16 2011 13:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:08 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader. Did you not pay attention to the massive street protests amidst the contested election in 2009? That should be even more troubling to proponents of Ron Paul's plan of "lets let them get the bomb." They're not a democracy, they don't have a problem with rigging elections or shooting their citizens in the street, and they may be on the verge of their own Arab Spring and then nobody knows who will seize power.
What's the alternative to "let them get the bomb"? Invade? That's the only alternative I see. Every other measure is simply a stop gap. I'm not in favor of invading another nation, are you?
Anyway, if Ron Paul were to win just one state I would be absolutely thrilled. It would mean there might be hope after all. A very slim, small, barely glimmering hope. That doesn't mean I support 100% of what Ron Paul says, I just support more of what he says than any other politician in any American election in years.
|
On December 16 2011 13:31 Sakenator wrote:
They can hate on Ron Paul all they want! But if he takes first in Iowa you wont be able to deny the power that the man has.
. REVOLUTION!!!!!
The same power Huckabee had? Enough power to host a weekend prime time slot on Fox News
|
Canada11578 Posts
Blah Hannity can't stop with the 3rd Party question. Let it go already, it only serves to delegitimize Ron Paul's current running.
TV station's on loop so I can watch the beginning of the debate. I really think Ron Paul could continue with the welfare-warfare split in America.
|
“I am firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation,” he said.” At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That has been my position from the beginning.”
Here come the ads with Romney saying he was a progressive. Also claiming that you did such flip flops because you were going against Kennedy is pretty dumb.
|
There is ... quite a bit of misinformation about Iran, their structure of government, and their democracy going around here (freedomhouse.org, nationmaster.com, those should help a little for those interested). It's been beaten to do death here and in other recent threads, though, so I'd rather stay on topic. Iran is a fascinating place with a lot of history, complicated domestic politics, a developing identity crisis and demographic shift, and tensions between the conservative rural population and progressive urbanites (surprise, it's not just the U.S.!) but I'm here to talk about Republicans.
I missed the debate because I'm at work but I read a synopsis at politico. Does this line up with what you guys saw? How did Newt weather the storm, and can he shake his rocky past? The phrase "I took their money but I never let it affect my politics" is hard to swallow, no matter who you are or how true it might be.
http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/1211/70535.html
|
On December 16 2011 13:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:31 Sakenator wrote:
They can hate on Ron Paul all they want! But if he takes first in Iowa you wont be able to deny the power that the man has.
. REVOLUTION!!!!! The same power Huckabee had? Enough power to host a weekend prime time slot on Fox News
That's unlikely. Fox News hates Ron Paul.
|
I hate how much the media doesn't like Ron Paul. fucking makes me rage.
|
On December 16 2011 13:33 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:24 BlackJack wrote:On December 16 2011 13:08 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader. Did you not pay attention to the massive street protests amidst the contested election in 2009? That should be even more troubling to proponents of Ron Paul's plan of "lets let them get the bomb." They're not a democracy, they don't have a problem with rigging elections or shooting their citizens in the street, and they may be on the verge of their own Arab Spring and then nobody knows who will seize power. What's the alternative to "let them get the bomb"? Invade? That's the only alternative I see. Every other measure is simply a stop gap. I'm not in favor of invading another nation, are you? Anyway, if Ron Paul were to win just one state I would be absolutely thrilled. It would mean there might be hope after all. A very slim, small, barely glimmering hope. That doesn't mean I support 100% of what Ron Paul says, I just support more of what he says than any other politician in any American election in years.
Letting them have the bomb to avoid war is still a better position than "lets let them have bombs because we have bombs too so it's fair!"
|
On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity
Indeed...a simple look at the communist era will show you that at its peak, people will fucking blow themselves up for the communist cause. Look at China's propaganda at the time, tell me if that doesn't value martydom.
The only thing that makes Iran stand out is their stance on Israel.
I don't think using one person (Ahmandinejad) as an example works. People in a nation will come to their senses. Hell, imagine if MacArthur would have had his way, he basically staged a military coup just get permission to drop 30 nukes to win the Korean war. Thank god Truman grew a pair in time.
|
LOL, Christine O'Donnell is back. <3 her.
|
On December 16 2011 13:17 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:14 1Eris1 wrote:On December 16 2011 13:07 HardlyNever wrote:On December 16 2011 12:56 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:50 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:41 Fleebenworth wrote:On December 16 2011 12:40 TritaN wrote:On December 16 2011 12:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 16 2011 12:26 AegonC wrote:
I'm watching the Fox News Debate and so far it looks like Ron Paul is the only sane person in the debate. Ron Paul actually understands that the reason Muslim extremists are targeting us is because we're in their country killing them and bombing them nonstop. Americans need to put themselves in the shoes of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and realize how mad they would be. Ron Paul has got my vote. Whoa stop using logic, GOP doesn't like that. On other note, I dunno why there's a giant shitstorm about Ron Paul's stance on Iran... The potential problem here is that Iran is a whole other beast. We're not talking about Soviet Russia here. One of the candidates brought up the fact that Iran values martyrdom over any other virtue, thus rendering the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction irrelevant. No other country in the history of the world has simultaneously wielded the power of nuclear weapons and had the desire to purposely and deliberately die for a cause they believe in (which in this case is problematic because that cause happens to be Jihad.) I really hate to say it, because I agree with and support Ron Paul on so many of his stances, but the other candidates were right when they said that ignoring a nuclear Iran could be the greatest under-reaction in the history of the world. Bolded for hilarity Please, elaborate. Where to start? Countries are not unitary entities but are actually composed of millions of people with diverse values and beliefs, Iranian culture is actually quite socially progressive compared to the other countries in the region (despite the caricatures you have been indoctrinated with), if the people that are now trying to scaremonger about Iran had any shred of seriousness, they wouldn't have all supported the Iraq invasion, etc. Oh and America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of Russia, Israel, the US, and Pakistan are much more dangerous than any nukes Iran may develop in the near future. The tension we are experiencing with Iran has much more to do with the fact that they are one of the sole powers that opposes the Israeli/American hegemony in the region and much less to do with them being evil crazy muslims that want to kill us all and hate our freedom. I want to agree with you, I really do. But youtube just about any Ahmadinejad speech (his one at the UN is pretty good), and it is hard to NOT believe that stereotype. That's not to say he speaks for all Iranians, but he is their elected leader. Ahmandinejad has so little power though. It all rests in the hands of Khomennei (is it Khomennei?) and the rest of the council. They use AJ as a front to stir up drama and create attention, but I highly doubt he would ever be placed in charge of anything military related. This is true, but that sort of even furthers the point. The people in power in Iran deliberately send a guy out into the world to spew a lot of anti-American/Western sentiment. If they didn't want that, they could definitely make him stop. Again, whether this truly represents the "will of the people" in Iran is a different question, and frankly we've derailed this thread enough, I think.
Well, I don't know, maybe Iranians should embrace the West and Americans after-all, they've only had Western backed Coups to bring about a very repressive Regime in 1953 and ousted the democratically elected Mossadegh. Perhaps people should have a proper understanding of Middle Eastern history and especially Iranian in regard to Western actions in the region, both overt and covert. Before the US it was the British that held Imperial sway over Iran and Iran to this day still resents Britain more than America (you know the whole taking Iranian land and natural resources bit...). I wonder why Iranians have animosity towards the West...
|
These idiots are scared of Iran getting together a nuclear bomb when we have 40+ bases around it....
![[image loading]](http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/390444_10150520544160802_207770190801_10779412_403641272_n.jpg)
|
On December 16 2011 16:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:These idiots are scared of Iran getting together a nuclear bomb when we have 40+ bases around it....
40 isnt enough, they need 40 bases IN iran to be happy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
