Obama On Terrorism

[TFOGGER]

If you have any doubts about President Ahmanutjob, read the transcript of his 60 Minutes interview. Basically, he dodged every question concerning Israel, the Iranian Nuke program, and pretty much every other subject of substance.

[Hoosier]

Well, let's see:

• You've accused those of us who believe Israel's existence is jeopardized by Iran of basically being brainwashed by AIPAC and other "imperialistic minded lobbies".
• Most conservatives see Iran as a threat.
• You used the term "imperialistic minded lobbies". Don't think I've ever heard anyone on the right use that term...unless quoting a liberal that used it.
• When others have opinions to you it's simply "rhetoric", even though you say you're interested in other views...classic liberal tactic.
• There have been several rational explanations as why a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat and you've simply not responded to them or dismissed them.
• You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.
• OK...just kidding on the last one.

Welcome to the board! Anyone who doesn't adhere to the rightest wing policy on every single issue is a libtard. I've been tar'd and feathered already, they mostly tolerate my middle of the road views -- except I suspect a few have me blocked.

H.

[SAnd]

Well, let's see:

• You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.

What about Non-Commie Mosin-Nagant rifles?

[jerrymrc]

Welcome to the board! Anyone who doesn't adhere to the rightest wing policy on every single issue is a libtard. I've been tar'd and feathered already, they mostly tolerate my middle of the road views -- except I suspect a few have me blocked.

H.

I never thought of you that way but then I have some views that are not hard core right. Nothing really left but more libertarian in that respect. Not a big RP supporter in some of his views but everyone to his own.

At least we do not have Dabs on the board and only a few will get that.

[Bailey Guns]

Anyone who doesn't adhere to the rightest wing policy on every single issue is a libtard.

Correct...or, right.

See? How hard was that?

BTW: That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I guess it didn't come across that way.

[jhood001]

Read your article. And read a few other things along the way. Learned a few things specifically about Israel's non-aggression policies. One being, that I had always believed that Israel started the 7 Day War. They definitely shot first, but it seems justified to me now. I didn't know they had so much hostile force stacked up on their borders just waiting for the word. I still believe they take their pre-emption a little further than they should, but given the history there... I don't blame them... anymore.

In regards to the Saudi's expressing that they will be forced to develop nuclear weapons in response to Iran acquiring them-
I agree that it is pretty telling to just how worrisome Iran is to nations in that region and as such, I agree more now that they are a threat to that region. Although the comments in the linked article talking about how the Saudi's have never worried about Israel because of their record of non-agression is bullshit in my opinion. Saudi Arabia isn't worried about Israel because of the U.S.'s relationship with both of them and for no other reason. That is simply my opinion though.

Ahmadinedjad's rhetoric does seem to be getting out of hand. Some of you pointed out some things I had never seen before. I'm not sure if he is acting as the voice for Iran's leadership when he say's those things or not, but he's their mouth-piece so I suppose I need to take what he says with some more gravity. I'll also say that I think a lot of what that twit says is more for rallying his own power-base in what I've read is becoming a real contest for future control of the country. Allah-willing, the Ayatollah will drop that moron in a very deep and dark hole in the near future and start having their other leaders play nice with their neighbors.

In regards to your super-sleuth liberal detection, Mr. Bailey Guns:

Well, let's see:

• You've accused those of us who believe Israel's existence is jeopardized by Iran of basically being brainwashed by AIPAC and other "imperialistic minded lobbies".

That wasn't my intent if that is what you got out of my statements. I was specifically talking about Iran as a threat to the US. Not her allies or interests and I will stand behind my statement that conversation regarding Iran as a threat to the US does originate from those sources. 'Brainwashed' is your word.

• Most conservatives see Iran as a threat.

Well if everyone else is doing it, I better get with the herd! Give me some time to work on my 'baaaaaaah's and grow my wool out.
...
Seriously?

• You used the term "imperialistic minded lobbies". Don't think I've ever heard anyone on the right use that term...unless quoting a liberal that used it.

Identifying certain lobbies as 'imperialistic' is a liberal thing? What should I have called them? The desire to spread the influence of the United States throughout the world and over other countries is imperialism. I think calling a rock a rock isn't liberal, conservative, or anything else other than maybe 'smart'.

• When others have opinions to you it's simply "rhetoric", even though you say you're interested in other views...classic liberal tactic.

No. Something that someone states is an opinion of theirs is an opinion to me. In this discussion, I called What Ahmadinedjad say's on a continuing basis to be 'rhetoric'. He's standing on a pedestal spewing varying degrees of bullshit to his followers. How is that not rhetoric, man? And further, how does your misunderstanding of the english language constitute any sort of 'tactic' on my behalf?

• There have been several rational explanations as why a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat and you've simply not responded to them or dismissed them.

Pretty sure I said this -

So you're presenting the case that that if they get nukes, their leaders are crazy enough to use them on us or our allies through a proxy. And by using a proxy, they can somehow stay out of our crosshairs for retaliation. I can buy into that.

in direct response to a quote that gave just such a rational explanation.
Reading comprehension for the win.

• You like Mosin-Nagant commie rifles.

I consider them to be prisoners of war, honest. Ignore the fact that I keep them in the same place as their american counter-parts.

• OK...just kidding on the last one.

I know.

[Bailey Guns]

BTW: That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I guess it didn't come across that way.

Guess you also missed that part.

But aside from that it's good to see you may have learned something about Israel and Iran.

[Sharpienads]

Wow, I joined this thread way late and don't have enough time comment on everything. But basically if you don't think a nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing, you're crazy. And trying to split hairs between "wipe Israel of the map" and "remove the Israeli regime from the pages of time"... Really? What's the difference? That's like saying Ahmedinajad doesn't hate gay people, they just don't have the "gay phenomenon" in their country. We all know Ahmedinajahd is a freakin' nut case.

Identifying certain lobbies as 'imperialistic' is a liberal thing? What should I have called them? The desire to spread the influence of the United States throughout the world and over other countries is imperialism. I think calling a rock a rock isn't liberal, conservative, or anything else other than maybe 'smart'.

Your definition of imperialism is wrong. Imperialism is not spreading a country's influence to other countries. By that definition, a country could either be 100% imperialistic or 100% isolationist. Imperialism is controlling other countries, not influencing. By your definition, just about every country in the world (besides maybe N Korea) would be imperialistic.

I specifically point this comment out because imperialism is one of those words that gets tossed around without any thought. Kinda like Nazi, fascist, democracy, and the like. Democracy today is code for socialism, and any time you hear a leftie use the word, what they really mean is "We hate the constitution because it keeps us from doing whatever we want so we like democracy better because then we worry about violating individual liberty". Conservatives are constantly called Nazis and/or fascists, even though those two are on opposite ends of the political spectrum from conservatism. Imperalism gets thrown out there all the time, too. Doing what's best for a nation's interests or influencing other countries is not imperalistic. Imperialism is a word libtards like to use to describe conservatives, even though the way they use it is not the real definition.

Speaking of libtards, is there a "libtard" equivilent for conservitives? Contard doesn't roll off the tongue like libtard does. Maybe we could come up with something?

[UberTong]

This thread was pure comedy...rhetoric...rhetoric...rhetoric....I know its you nynco, I missed your sweet self.

[Ronin13]

Ah ha! I found one that I can weigh in on with some fun little facts...
Iran is evil, as presented to me and a group of other US Army Intelligence Professionals by a senior analyst for the ME Desk in Langley, VA (for those kids that don't do math and can't put 2 & 2 together, that's CIA)...
Iran having nuclear weapons is bad for the west. 1) Nuclear weapons must be strictly guarded and accounted for, the former Soviet Union did a piss-poor job at this and "lost" some of their stockpile, Iran "loosing" just one 5MT nuclear weapon would be beyond bad. 2) Iran has outwardly and loudly supported anti-western and pro-Palestine terrorist organizations (Hezbollah comes to mind, and they fucking HATE us), so it would come as no surprise that a nuke could slip into the hands of one of these groups and next thing you know that lovely area once known as Tel Aviv is wiped off the map (not to mention they could even target DC, NY, LA, etc.). 3) Does no one remember the hostage crisis in the 1980s? 4) Even if they don't intend to weaponize and use nuclear fission technology in a bad way, what if in their all too wonderful abilities (I'm referring to a 2009 incident where their nuclear enrichment program was brought to a screeching halt by a flash drive introduced virus- no one knows who was behind the cyber attack) they somehow manage a colossal fuck up like the USSR did at Chernobyl... well I can tell you none of us would shed too many tears, until the prevailing winds push the fallout to somewhere like Afghanistan and we start ending up with US troops coming down with radiation sickness- perhaps the worse way to die.
Thus, if you look at the logical and sound reasons why Iran should definitely NOT have anything to do with nuclear technology and still ask "Why do we see Iran as evil?" you need your head examined... Iran is a crazy crazy place that is in a constant struggle to deal with being a strict sharia Islamic republic and a modern fast growing society... too bad the moderates are shut up pretty fast by the likes of Wahhabi clerics and hard-line Muzzies.