DescentBB

woodchip wrote:does your enlightened population include the people running the show?

no, it refers to the people who WOULD be running the show, had the US not meddled in the region regarding the Shah.

Not meddled like not doing anything when the Shah was being overthrown?

Not meddled like not doing anything when Iran committed a act of war by taking over our embassy and imprisoning the staff?

Not meddled like not doing anything when the students were revolting and not offering even encouragement?

yeah, cite the damage done by the prior meddling, recall the geopolitics of region in the time of the overthrow, and that's the best you can come up.

woodchip wrote:Gee vision, I would like to hear your opinion on why Iran would stop calling us the Great Satan if only they got the bomb and how they would become a philanthropist country. Otherwise I'm with Will.

Still can't determine what is rhetoric or not? You think Iran likes being called part of the axis of evil? it's all just words. When you look at actions, Iran is one of the more Western, peaceful places in the Middle East. All their military engagements for the past century have been self defense. Can't say that about the US, now can you? Yet we can have a bomb and they can't? It's not like anyone but the US has ever used a nuke. It's a status symbol. Iran isn't perfect, neither are we or Israel or anyone else. No one should have nuclear weapons, but let's not pretend we are on some ★■◆●ing moral high ground here. That being said, they absolutely deserve to have nuclear power and we should be very supportive of their program. I would even suggest we build it for them. It would be a great investment in the future.

We offered to have another country like Russia supple the enriched uranium needed to fuel their reactors. Instead Iran has somewhere around 190k centrifuges. Sorry vision but your utopian view is as vaporous as slicks.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Gee vision, I would like to hear your opinion on why Iran would stop calling us the Great Satan if only they got the bomb and how they would become a philanthropist country. Otherwise I'm with Will.

Still can't determine what is rhetoric or not? You think Iran likes being called part of the axis of evil? it's all just words. When you look at actions, Iran is one of the more Western, peaceful places in the Middle East. All their military engagements for the past century have been self defense. Can't say that about the US, now can you? Yet we can have a bomb and they can't? It's not like anyone but the US has ever used a nuke. It's a status symbol. Iran isn't perfect, neither are we or Israel or anyone else. No one should have nuclear weapons, but let's not pretend we are on some **** moral high ground here. That being said, they absolutely deserve to have nuclear power and we should be very supportive of their program. I would even suggest we build it for them. It would be a great investment in the future.

Your comments make perfect sense....for someone who ignores an important distinction....
I get the sense that the paper you are writing isn't going to improve your grade.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Gee vision, I would like to hear your opinion on why Iran would stop calling us the Great Satan if only they got the bomb and how they would become a philanthropist country. Otherwise I'm with Will.

Still can't determine what is rhetoric or not? You think Iran likes being called part of the axis of evil? it's all just words. When you look at actions, Iran is one of the more Western, peaceful places in the Middle East. All their military engagements for the past century have been self defense. Can't say that about the US, now can you? Yet we can have a bomb and they can't? It's not like anyone but the US has ever used a nuke. It's a status symbol. Iran isn't perfect, neither are we or Israel or anyone else. No one should have nuclear weapons, but let's not pretend we are on some **** moral high ground here. That being said, they absolutely deserve to have nuclear power and we should be very supportive of their program. I would even suggest we build it for them. It would be a great investment in the future.

You are a dangerous man, Vision. I hope you'll never work as an advisor of the US President. Stupid and predictable Yankees we can overcome much easier than clever... Amen

Will Robinson wrote:....for someone who ignores an important distinction....

Which is? Give it your best shot without exposing US hypocrisy.

vision, you appear to be making a very childish argument.

You presented your 'proof' that 'Iran=less violent than USA' by saying we should look at their "actions" to make the comparison but by selectively citing only their national military efforts you willfully ignore their most deadly work.
By way of your foolhardy calculation (or despicable ploy) you absolve them for their huge contribution to worldwide terrorism. Their destabilizing multiple countries by injecting their Islamo-facsism into the mix. They specialize in mass casualty attacks on innocent civilian gatherings. Ambulance bombs set off in the chaotic aftermath of a car bomb they detonated....suicide bombs in cafe's where children gather.. etc. Killing off any moderate who might actually find his way to a peace accord with the enemy...

And now you want to hide behind some immature ploy to say I'm not allowed to point out that notorious reputation they have for mass murder, international terrorism, creating perpetual war zones out of refugee camps...turning the Palestinian conflict into a decades long killing field, making the Palestinian people into their proxy martyrs in the name of a god only they have the authority to interpret?!?

And you want to claim that stipulation under the flag of 'It doesn't count because the other kids did it too'?!?!

You have either no sense, or no shame, to argue those important details aren't a distinction to be considered in the debate as to whether the rest of world might have cause to resist their building a nuclear weapons program.

I'm tired of explaining to you that the United States consciously and intentionally are provocateur aggression against the United States from other countries. Nevertheless, the whole world is tolerant to US aggression. Everyone, everyone, educated person knows that the American principle of thinking is based on the corporate thinking of company management. The most totalitarian regime, which may be, there is in American corporations. Joseph Stalin was a child in comparison with the president of the corporation. We all know that the US is trying to turn the whole world into one big corporation unquestioning obedience. Let's try it. In the US for a long time there was no war? So will. It seems, American morons don't understand that if they live well, most of people on the planet have nothing to lose, except their honor.

Sigma why do you keep extolling the virtues of America when you invaded a peace loving country like Ukraine?

woodchip... if you allow me, I will not comment on it. I've had enough of it. Simply respecting you as a soldier from the soldier.

Fair enough

Will Robinson wrote:...by selectively citing only their national military efforts you willfully ignore their most deadly work....By way of your foolhardy calculation (or despicable ploy) you absolve them for their huge contribution to worldwide terrorism.

The greatest terrorist threats do not come from Iran, nor anyone funded by Iran, and certainly nothing can compare to the United States funding of terrorism worldwide. We give money to practically every nation in the Middle East and have actively provided funds and armament to despots and rebels alike. You failed to step around the hypocrisy land-mine. Please try again.

Will Robinson wrote:Their destabilizing multiple countries by injecting their Islamo-facsism into the mix.

None of this comes from Iran. You must be confusing them with their enemy, Saudi Arabia. Iranian culture is unique and they are fairly isolated in the Muslim world. You should learn that all brown people from that region are not this warped stereotype the media has poisoned your brain with.

Will Robinson wrote:They specialize in mass casualty attacks on innocent civilian gatherings. Ambulance bombs set off in the chaotic aftermath of a car bomb they detonated....suicide bombs in cafe's where children gather.. etc. Killing off any moderate who might actually find his way to a peace accord with the enemy...

Those are laughably ridiculous statements. None of those things are Iranian in nature. And again, you fail to account for US hypocrisy. With all our weapons sales and drone attacks we have no moral high-ground from which to stand and dictate the behavior of others.

Will Robinson wrote:blah, blah, blah, nonsense...turning the Palestinian conflict into a decades long killing field, making the Palestinian people into their proxy martyrs in the name of a god only they have the authority to interpret?!?

How insulting to the people of Palestine that you reduce them to puppets of Iran. You should tell this story to a Palestinian and see what kind of reaction you get! Idiot.

Will Robinson wrote:You have either no sense, or no shame, to argue those important details aren't a distinction to be considered in the debate as to whether the rest of world might have cause to resist their building a nuclear weapons program.

You have yet to provide any proof or substance to your claims. Try again.

Maybe this will shine a little light on what really goes on in that part of the world.



he isn't making this ★■◆● up.

vision you are so wrong. I don't know if you feel compelled to disagree or actually don't know Iran's role in terrorism in the region but they are at the root of plenty of it. Hezbollah, as just one Iranian terrorist effort, was funded, staffed and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard! They are the tip of the islamo-facsist spear with the designed goal of spreading the Ayatollah's Islamic fundamentalist revolution. He is/was the supreme leader of the Shia brand of terrorists.

It is ridiculous to complain about Saudi Arabian contribution to middle east terrorists and those terrorist's efforts around the globe and at the same time declare 'Iran isn't like that...they are different kind of people'! Completely foolish is the only way to describe that. The average Iranian person is a wonderful person. The religious zealots that run the country INVENTED the kind of terrorism you claim is un-Iranian-like!

Actually there is another possible explanation. The typical left leaning cheerleader accepts Saudi Arabia is an approved left wing labeled bogeyman target: Bush/oil/Saudi Royal Family etc. etc. so they 'know about them' but since right wingers complain about Iran the lefties are compelled to oppose the rightwing without question and so they become willfully ignorant to the OG islamofacsist elephant in the region simply out of knee jerk partisan idiocy. Maybe that's your excuse?

As to your overall argument, it too is ridiculous. Regardless of what bad things others do/did, *what Iran does* is what matters when deciding if you want to interfere with their desire to get nuclear weapons. If they are perceived to pose an unusual threat by being armed that way then they get singled out and 'fairness' isn't a part of the decision making process when nations get together to decide another nations fate.

found it, still appropriate in this thread, too.

Oh goody!
A picture of a fool making the illogical argument of mutually exclusivity where it doesn't apply.
I know why you like him but that doesn't make him smart.

he's right. Our Congress DOES choose one over the other. Shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but the way they go about it, it seems that way.

Are you referring to actual policy or legislation? Or just making a statement of slicks viewpoint? MacGyver, cardboard and a Sharpie so it must be so?

well, you have me there, Will. This Congress is incapable of passing legislation. I'm judging by their hot air on the public interviews.

Lets correct you a wee bit slick. Congress does pass legislation but Obama vetos everything they do.

three bills in six years? Seriously, Woody, you dare make THAT argument?

3 new laws added to the long list in just 6 years is plenty! At this stage in the Republic it should taper down like that...

Will Robinson wrote:3 new laws added to the long list in just 6 years is plenty!

Really? With the amount of technological and social change that is going on, 3 laws in 6 years is enough? We could certainly use a few specific laws to protect citizens from government intrusion, wouldn't you say?

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:3 new laws added to the long list in just 6 years is plenty!

Really? With the amount of technological and social change that is going on, 3 laws in 6 years is enough? We could certainly use a few specific laws to protect citizens from government intrusion, wouldn't you say?

Well, it was a bit rhetorical but....

How many laws do we have for that already and how is it working out for us?

Maybe simply churning out more laws isn't the answer. Their unbridled contempt for all citizens has got to the point where they literally said 'we need to let them vote a Bill into law before we can read it to find out what's in it.'

With a government like that I just don't have a lot of confidence another law passed to 'keep government from intruding on us' is going to be effective at controlling them.

I'll offer you a trade...2 new laws for every 1 seat in congress you eliminate...
TWO FOR ONE!! Thats a deal!

I meant that Obama has VETOED 3 bills in 6 years. Congress hasn't been able to pass a budget, let alone legislation. As vision writes, in a changing world with ever more challenges, a SLEW of laws need to be enacted, some removing older, archaic laws from the books.

vision wrote:
Really? With the amount of technological and social change that is going on, 3 laws in 6 years is enough? We could certainly use a few specific laws to protect citizens from government intrusion, wouldn't you say?

So is that why they used a 1935 era law to regulate the internet?

woodchip wrote:So is that why they used a 1935 era law to regulate the internet?

Do you even think about things before you post them? What is the point of that comment? Old laws are no good? If so, why not just throw out the Constitution? The current proposals by the FCC would simply amend existing laws, just like a new law against laser guns would probably get tacked on to that centuries old 2nd amendment. It's sad I have to explain this stuff to an allegedly grown man.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:
Really? With the amount of technological and social change that is going on, 3 laws in 6 years is enough? We could certainly use a few specific laws to protect citizens from government intrusion, wouldn't you say?

So is that why they used a 1935 era law to regulate the internet?

sure, because lotsa luck getting this Congress to pass ANYTHING. As I said...... The only bill they've passed in two months required the Dems to carry the day.

You are the one saying we need new laws to keep up with tech. advances. Yet when I point out that we are using a old law for new tech, you get all professorial. As to the 2nd amendment I suggest you look at all the laws that have been enacted to control firearm use. And no I won't bother listing em.

woodchip wrote:You are the one saying we need new laws to keep up with tech. advances. Yet when I point out that we are using a old law for new tech, you get all professorial.

No one, and I repeat "no one," is suggesting using the Tittle II reclassification as it is currently written to regulate ISPs. New language needs to be inserted. If you think otherwise, you are beyond stupid. Again, it's hard to believe a grownup can't understand this.

you new here, vision?

woodchip wrote:Sigma why do you keep extolling the virtues of America when you invaded a peace loving country like Ukraine?

Probably because the U.S. has "invaded" more countries than Russia, as of late. Our leg to stand on is pretty weak.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:You are the one saying we need new laws to keep up with tech. advances. Yet when I point out that we are using a old law for new tech, you get all professorial.

No one, and I repeat "no one," is suggesting using the Tittle II reclassification as it is currently written to regulate ISPs. New language needs to be inserted. If you think otherwise, you are beyond stupid. Again, it's hard to believe a grownup can't understand this.

With over 300 pages regulating the internet as passed by the FCC, has the FCC even released the regulations? All I can find are statements but not the actual rules. A grownup questions what is going on, a child blindly believes it will all be OK if a adult tells him such. Stop being a child.

They aren't regulating the internet, they are regulating some of the more anti-competitive ISP behaviors. ISPs do not equal the internet. As much as they claim to be the internet, in reality they are only selling access to the internet and should be nothing more and nothing less.

The FCC is unable to release the rules, because (Shock and Awe!) the two republican commissioners are deliberately holding up the established publishing process. Comically one of them even complained that the rules should have been made public before the vote, but now that it is done they are instead preventing them from being published! So do they want the public to see the rules or don't they, what is the problem? Actually, its pretty obvious what the problem is: They simply don't care about their current jobs at all, they are only concerned with maximizing the profits they will get from their cushy Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/NCTA lobbying jobs they have lined up for after they are done at the FCC.

But anyway, what was this topic about again?

Americans should more worry not on the acquisition by Iran of nuclear technology, and that the American soldiers who already have access to the nuclear button, too often use morphine from the individual army kits unnecessarily and just for fun. The problem of drug addiction American soldiers have long been a threat to world peace.
And by the way, strange statements of the US administration, are often forced everyone to think that they have long been fress some psychotropic pills.

sigma wrote:Americans should more worry not on the acquisition by Iran of nuclear technology, and that the American soldiers who already have access to the nuclear button, too often use morphine from the individual army kits unnecessarily and just for fun. The problem of drug addiction American soldiers have long been a threat to world peace.
And by the way, strange statements of the US administration, are often forced everyone to think that they have long been fress some psychotropic pills.

you're so full of ★■◆●, the worse part you actually believe the manure you spew