Sen. Lieberman says force may be needed in Iran

[Morgan Brykein]

Joe Lieberman is the closest we have in Congress to a National Socialist.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

YouTube - Entry #510 - Coercive Diplomacy (Let's Bomb Iran!!!)

 

[devil21]

Huckabee never talked about a Christian Calphate or said, Christinity will conquer the mountaintops of the world. To compare violent rhetoric to socially conservative and in my opinion backward rhetoric on gays and abortion is absurd. We have our religious, but they are in no way similar to the Mullahs.

So we're really going to dissect the degrees of religious rhetoric? Id rather instead just accept that religious rhetoric wins votes, regardless of country, and is a viable explanation for why politicians use it.

They clearly don't keep voting for it. In case you lived under a rock for the last year or so, they had huge riots and demonstrations in the streets over a fraudulent election results. And they are a dictatorship, essentially. The supreme leader has control of the armed forces, supervises elections, and can remove the president and the head of state media. He controls the army, elections, the executive branch, and the media.

That CIA financed operation? HA! Talk about living under a rock.
GWB approves CIA black ops against Iran in 2007:http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23283
YouTube - Iran Protests courtesy of the CIA

Calling Iran a dictatorship is like calling Britain a dictatorship. Do you consider Britain to be a dictatorship? How about Canada or Australia? I hope I don't have to explain why Im drawing this parallel.

And if no one made it their business to support freedom movements around the world America would have never existed, we would have never won our revolution without funding from France and Spain and French military support.

Your history is all messed up. France and Spain supported the colonists as a means to injure Britain's empire, not support "freedom movements". Their motives were entirely self-serving, as are your motives I suspect.

There is zero comparison between talking about the end times and Islam dominating the world through the 12th Imam and NAFTA, sorry. Maybe you point would hold muster if we were talking about some Iranian trade deal. In fact, Ahmedenijad talks populist during his campaigns, he promises roads and water facilities during elections, and provides a few as a token gesture for votes, but never completes the projects. here was a good documentary on the last election in Iran on HBO. I can't remember the name, but it talked about this.

Im not surprised you can't see parallels about how politicians lie and say whatever they think a particular voting block wants to hear. I fear you simply are unable to put yourself in the shoes of an Iranian person for even a moment to see that rhetorics may be different but the RESULT is the same. Winning Votes. Ahmadinejad campaigns mainly to the rural residents of Iran, which are by-and-large much more religious than the city dwellers, hence his rhetoric is geared toward them. This also explains why it was the city dwellers that turned out to protest the election results.

 

[Morgan Brykein]

Islam is going to dominate the world using NAFTA?

OH LOL

 

[lester1/2jr]

I don't care what the Constitution says

?? then what are we talking about? the consitution is not SYMBLIC it says explicitly "Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws, and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam"

it is an islamic state. the above is what an islamic state is, one where islam is the state religion and the foundation for the countries laws.

You can't convert to Judaism for one

again, they have thousands of jews in Iran. and a jewish minster in the parliament. I'm not advocating Iranian style governence for anybody but there are jews living and thriving in Iran.

We aren't occupying any countries, occupation entails dislike by the majority of the populace.

??? it's called the occupation. george bush said "no one likes to be occupied". Bremer was the head of the Occupational authority in Iraq. nothing entails anything and no one in the world besides you is saying we don't occupy iraq and afghhanistan.

And neither Egypt or Jordan are friendly with Israel, and Pakistan doesn't even recognize Israel, they don't even like us, they basically gave away Northern Waziristan and the Swat Valley to the Pakistani arm of the Taliban, who our armed forces are fighting

we give these countries billions of dollars. Did you not know that? that;s pretty basic

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html


pakistan

Financial aid to Pakistan since 9/11 From U.S
Between 2002-2010, Pakistan received approximately 18 billion[8] in military and economic aid from the United States. In February of 2010, the Obama administration requested an additional 3 billion in aid, for a total of 20.7 billion[9].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan

We have a stable secular friendly democracy in the region and on top of that Al Qaeda was severely defeated and reduced to nothingness in Iraq.

they are not friendly in the sense that they support our policies in the region. they are mainly friendly with Iran. Is that what you meant by friendly? They aren't pro israel, and they people there are certainly not either. Iran has virtually taken over the shia south. They are building an airport there!! and unlike when our presdident goes there, the iranian groups don't need to do it unannounced

it doesn't justify his support of terrorism, the repression of his own people, and his pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

well the new government is strongly allied with it's neighbor and co religionsts in Iran and THEY support terror. and how do yo uknow they don't want nuclear weapons? Iran wants nuclear energy, what are we going to do if Iraq wants it too?

No one gets in our out of Iraq without Saddam knowing.

lol of course they do. what was he god?? It's a massive country and smuggling is a pastime older than islam there. Even if he was a devout wahabi muslim why would he have let zarqawi in AFTER 9/11 anyway?? That would have been incredibly stupid don't you think? it makes no sense

Not every Muslim is backwards and barbaric, and most Iraqis are rational and reasonable everyday people who don't care for women to be bullied

that's like saying all americans favor gay marriage. many people in the middle east are genuinly religious and conservative and in that part of the world that means women wear the veil. In the big cities it's more liberal, same as here.

We shouldn't base our policy on appeasing Al Qaeda.

we appeased them by invading iraq. that's what they wanted and they got it. They wanted to draw us in and drain us like they did the soviets in afghanistan. and they drew us in and it drained us. we are drained.

al queda are profesional terrorists but they are getting support because they are acting against our foreign policy which muslims don't like. They don't like our government any more than we do, isn't that incredible?

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

we appeased them by invading iraq. that's what they wanted and they got it. They wanted to draw us in and drain us like they did the soviets in afghanistan. and they drew us in and it drained us. we are drained.

al queda are profesional terrorists but they are getting support because they are acting against our foreign policy which muslims don't like. They don't like our government any more than we do, isn't that incredible?

+1

And apparently Patriot believes most Afghans support the occupation, and are just dying to learn about women's rights and democracy.

Also, Patriot, if Iran is the Nazi Germany of our time, and intent on wiping out the Jews, wouldn't they start at home? How do you explain the Jewish population of Iran?

Also, you don't seem all that concerned about Saudi Arabia, which persecutes minority religions (especially Jews, who are pretty much outlawed) much more vehemently than Iran, and enforces Sharia much more strictly. The average Iranian is much more free than the average Saudi

But the House of Saud generally go along with American foreign policy, so their repression and dictatorship is fine by you.

 

[Old Ducker]

+1

And apparently Patriot believes most Afghans support the occupation, and are just dying to learn about women's rights and democracy.

Also, Patriot, if Iran is the Nazi Germany of our time, and intent on wiping out the Jews, wouldn't they start at home? How do you explain the Jewish population of Iran?

Also, you don't seem all that concerned about Saudi Arabia, which persecutes minority religions (especially Jews, who are pretty much outlawed) much more vehemently than Iran, and enforces Sharia much more strictly. The average Iranian is much more free than the average Saudi

But the House of Saud generally go along with American foreign policy, so their repression and dictatorship is fine by you.

Jews are protected in Iran by order of Ayatollah Khomeini. They have one seat in parliament reserved to them. The current Jewish mp has been quoted in the past to say, "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second."

 

[YumYum]

Jews are protected in Iran by order of Ayatollah Khomeini. They have one seat in parliament reserved to them. The current Jewish mp has been quoted in the past to say, "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second."

I remember when that was said a Jewish friend of mine told me "Those Iranian Jews aren't really Jews." I asked "Why not?!?" He said a real Jew would have said "I'm a Jew first and a Jew second!"

 

[Liberty Star]

I really don't understand all the sentiments here critical of the good senator who happens to be one of the few in the Senate who always put America's interests ahead of any foreign country's.

To be fair, this is not a new call of war from the good Senator though, he's been making same call year after year since he voted for invasion liberation of Iraqi people:


Sen. Joseph Lieberman: I'd Support Iran Attack
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:40 p.m. EDT. Sen. Joseph Lieberman: I'd Support Iran Attack ...
archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/164250.shtml


Sen. Lieberman Says Force May Be Needed In Iran - CBS News
Jul 7, 2010 ... Sen. Lieberman Says US Congress Supports Military Force If Needed
www.cbsnews.com/stories/.../main6654170.shtml



Unless people are mixing him up with current Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman who advocates violent racism, really hard to understand why the senator is not being seen as America firster here.

 

[The Patriot]

So we're really going to dissect the degrees of religious rhetoric? Id rather instead just accept that religious rhetoric wins votes, regardless of country, and is a viable explanation for why politicians use it.



That CIA financed operation? HA! Talk about living under a rock.
GWB approves CIA black ops against Iran in 2007:http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23283
YouTube - Iran Protests courtesy of the CIA

Calling Iran a dictatorship is like calling Britain a dictatorship. Do you consider Britain to be a dictatorship? How about Canada or Australia? I hope I don't have to explain why Im drawing this parallel.



Your history is all messed up. France and Spain supported the colonists as a means to injure Britain's empire, not support "freedom movements". Their motives were entirely self-serving, as are your motives I suspect.



Im not surprised you can't see parallels about how politicians lie and say whatever they think a particular voting block wants to hear. I fear you simply are unable to put yourself in the shoes of an Iranian person for even a moment to see that rhetorics may be different but the RESULT is the same. Winning Votes. Ahmadinejad campaigns mainly to the rural residents of Iran, which are by-and-large much more religious than the city dwellers, hence his rhetoric is geared toward them. This also explains why it was the city dwellers that turned out to protest the election results.

I know what you would rather accept, but it doesn't correlate with reality, considering the fact that the Mullahs finance and supply radical islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. What you are engaging in is wishful thinking. Than again, even if you accepted my premise, you still wouldn't care, because, by your logic, it isn't our business if Israel is destroyed. That can be your position, however irrational it may be, but don't suggest that the mullahs and Ahmedenijad don't mean what they say.

You see, this is the reason Ron Paul will never win, because of nutjobs like you who poison his campaign and suggest the millions of Iranians marching in the streets, being jailed and executed, and raped by the Basij, aren't real, that they are just paid off or whatever.

I never called them a dictatorship, you are creating strawmen, I clearly called them an oligopoly. But no, Britain is nothing like Iran, the Queen cannot dismiss the Prime Minister, or control the state media, or decide who runs for Prime Minister.

It doesn't matter what there motives were. America would not have existed had it been for the French and Spanish, they would have no existed without foreign intervention by world powers. I have no motives other than to support the secular democratic movement in Iran, the Green Movement, which has the support of the majority of Iranians.

It is kind of funny, first you say the protests are manufactured, than you admit the urban and educated Iranians protested against Ahmedenijad. Get your conspiracy theories straight.

 

[The Patriot]

?? then what are we talking about? the consitution is not SYMBLIC it says explicitly "Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws, and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam"

it is an islamic state. the above is what an islamic state is, one where islam is the state religion and the foundation for the countries laws.




again, they have thousands of jews in Iran. and a jewish minster in the parliament. I'm not advocating Iranian style governence for anybody but there are jews living and thriving in Iran.




??? it's called the occupation. george bush said "no one likes to be occupied". Bremer was the head of the Occupational authority in Iraq. nothing entails anything and no one in the world besides you is saying we don't occupy iraq and afghhanistan.

It is hard to take your claims about Iraq being an Islamic state, when you have yet to cite a single Islamic style law. It is symbolic, nothing more, and until you provide documented evidence, that is, Iraqi legal statutes, you have no ground to stand on.

You are still ignoring the fact that a Muslim cannot convert to Judaism, and that Jews cannot write jewish literature or advocate for the state of Israel under blasphemy laws. they are a second class minority, as all non muslims are.

Key word is was, they have their own elected government in place now, their is no provisional authority any longer. That is poor evidence for your claim of occupation.

Will respond to the rest later.

 

[The Patriot]

we appeased them by invading iraq. that's what they wanted and they got it. They wanted to draw us in and drain us like they did the soviets in afghanistan. and they drew us in and it drained us. we are drained.

al queda are profesional terrorists but they are getting support because they are acting against our foreign policy which muslims don't like. They don't like our government any more than we do, isn't that incredible?

No we didn't, we would have appeased them by leaving, which is what you want to do, and allow them free reign to attack innocent people, and not be so mean and imperialist to them, by stopping them from attacking Iraqi Civilians.

We destroyed AQI, they no longer have a base in Iraq, we destroyed their leadership there, and killed thousands of there fighters and now we have a stable democratic government in place, and we are schedueled to pull out by 2011.

Al Qaeda doesn't get support from Iraqis, only a very small minority of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. To suggest that Iraq, a shia country with a democratic government, supports attacks on it's army and coalition forces by foreign sunni radicals, is absurd and ignorant of the middle eastern dynamic. And how you group all muslims together as an anti-american block just shows your ignorance on middle eastern issues.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/goodmorningamerica/iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

 

[The Patriot]

lol of course they do. what was he god?? It's a massive country and smuggling is a pastime older than islam there. Even if he was a devout wahabi muslim why would he have let zarqawi in AFTER 9/11 anyway?? That would have been incredibly stupid don't you think? it makes no sense



that's like saying all americans favor gay marriage. many people in the middle east are genuinly religious and conservative and in that part of the world that means women wear the veil. In the big cities it's more liberal, same as here.

No, of course they don't, people just don't get over the iranian-iraqi border, particularly high level targets like that, who then go to set up camps with anti-kurdish islamists, by pure coincidence, and without Saddam knowing. And you have zero evidence to suggest Saddam knew nothing about Ansar al Islam, or their attacks on the Kurds. It makes perfect sense, he has a history of sponsoring and harboring terrorists. He harbored most wanted terrorist worldwide Abu Nidal(Palestinian), and harbored Abdul Yassin, who made bombs for the attacks on the WTC in 1993.

No, it is you are making the generalizations, you are characterizing all Iraqis as backwards primitives who condone violence towards unveiled women, when the polls I provided previously show they oppose attacks by vigilantes. Keep your prejudices out of this forum please.

 

[The Patriot]

we give these countries billions of dollars. Did you not know that? that;s pretty basic



http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html


pakistan



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan




they are not friendly in the sense that they support our policies in the region. they are mainly friendly with Iran. Is that what you meant by friendly? They aren't pro israel, and they people there are certainly not either. Iran has virtually taken over the shia south. They are building an airport there!! and unlike when our presdident goes there, the iranian groups don't need to do it unannounced

well the new government is strongly allied with it's neighbor and co religionsts in Iran and THEY support terror. and how do yo uknow they don't want nuclear weapons? Iran wants nuclear energy, what are we going to do if Iraq wants it too?

Money isn't a sign of power or influence. As you have shown, our money is going down a blackhole supporting a Islamist and terrorist sympathizing regime who hands over regions of their country to the Taliban.

The most popular party by the numbers is the Iraqi National Party, a coalition of pro western Secular sunnis and shias led by Iyad Allawi. The Dawa party certain has friendly relations with Iran, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. But Nouri- Al Maliki has consistently said he opposes all foreign influence in Iraqi politics and has criticized Iran's campaign to oppose the Iraqi-American security pact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=144275
And Iran has not taken over Iraq, that is absurd,there is no Iranian military presence in southern Iraq. They certainly have in the past harbored and supplied shia extremists who attack coalition troops, but the so called Islamist resistance has been reduced to insignificance for the most part.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

No we didn't, we would have appeased them by leaving, which is what you want to do, and allow them free reign to attack innocent people, and not be so mean and imperialist to them, by stopping them from attacking Iraqi Civilians.

We destroyed AQI, they no longer have a base in Iraq, we destroyed their leadership there, and killed thousands of there fighters and now we have a stable democratic government in place, and we are schedueled to pull out by 2011.

Al Qaeda doesn't get support from Iraqis, only a very small minority of Iraqis support attacks on coalition forces. To suggest that Iraq, a shia country with a democratic government, supports attacks on it's army and coalition forces by foreign sunni radicals, is absurd and ignorant of the middle eastern dynamic. And how you group all muslims together as an anti-american block just shows your ignorance on middle eastern issues.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/goodmorningamerica/iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

Al Qaeda in Iraq was a result of American intervention anyway. Zarqawis group was a negligible group of wannabe's before the invasion.

You seem like the type of guy who says our biggest mistake was "pulling out" of Vietnam. I.E. an idiot

 

[devil21]

You have such small tunnel vision on foreign policy that you completely miss the big picture of how the world works. Myself, and many RPF members are people of "big picture" intellects and we use them.

I know what you would rather accept, but it doesn't correlate with reality, considering the fact that the Mullahs finance and supply radical islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. What you are engaging in is wishful thinking. Than again, even if you accepted my premise, you still wouldn't care, because, by your logic, it isn't our business if Israel is destroyed. That can be your position, however irrational it may be, but don't suggest that the mullahs and Ahmedenijad don't mean what they say.

Why should I be concerned about Israel? Why are you so concerned about Israel? Aren't you an American? I am. Unfortunately, those that support your ideal neo-con foreign policy aren't Americans. They're Zionists first, Americans second...or third....or maybe not at all. I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again. Non-religious people don't care about mullah this and Israel that. You're advocating religious war to protect a foreign country but using my children's future as your springboard. Fuck that.

You see, this is the reason Ron Paul will never win, because of nutjobs like you who poison his campaign and suggest the millions of Iranians marching in the streets, being jailed and executed, and raped by the Basij, aren't real, that they are just paid off or whatever.

You obviously have no idea how the CIA operates and you trust the media way too much.

I never called them a dictatorship, you are creating strawmen, I clearly called them an oligopoly. But no, Britain is nothing like Iran, the Queen cannot dismiss the Prime Minister, or control the state media, or decide who runs for PrimeMinister.

The Queen can do any damn thing she wants. You really don't know much about the real world do ya? Debating with someone with such a narrow world view is frustrating.

It doesn't matter what there motives were. America would not have existed had it been for the French and Spanish, they would have no existed without foreign intervention by world powers. I have no motives other than to support the secular democratic movement in Iran, the Green Movement, which has the support of the majority of Iranians.

Uh you said they were spreading democracy or freedom movements or whatever. You're wrong and anyone reading this thread knows it, no matter how hard you try to twist our of your own comment.

It is kind of funny, first you say the protests are manufactured, than you admit the urban and educated Iranians protested against Ahmedenijad. Get your conspiracy theories straight.

Again you obviously have no idea how the CIA works. Watch that video I linked to. It explains it all very clearly.

See this is why I hate arguing with neo-cons. Not only will you stick to your Fox News soundbites, having done NO RESEARCH of your own, you will argue the same failed points endlessly as if your life depends on it. I don't understand it. More Americans have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars then all those lost on 9/11. We've done exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do and start bankrupting ourselves. But somehow you find it acceptable to invade yet another country. And for what? Because Ahmadinejad isn't a great president? Please. You're an Israel-firster and everyone here knows it. You only want Iran attacked to protect Israel. You don't care if it means $10/gallon gas prices, more dead Americans and more money pissed away on foreigners that don't care about us. It's madness! Im done with this thread. Ill let the other posters mop you up. The link is my sig should be read by all!

 

[lester1/2jr]

It is hard to take your claims about Iraq being an Islamic state, when you have yet to cite a single Islamic style law.

?? you're right I have no ground to stand on... except where I quote the iraqi constitution as saying that islam is the basis for the countries laws and no laws can ever go against islam.

sharia law is not what an islamic state is. two different things

You are still ignoring the fact that a Muslim cannot convert to Judaism, and that Jews cannot write jewish literature or advocate for the state of Israel under blasphemy laws. they are a second class minority, as all non muslims are.

It's yet another good reason to not live in Iran! Yes if you are a jew or any non muslim you are a second class citizen. Iran is a bad place to live. No one doubts this. That's why we choose to live here and not there.

WOuld you like to live in Iraq? Why don't you get an apartment in Baghdad and see how it goes. See what these "protections" amount to in the street.

http://www.geneveith.com/the-fate-of-christians-in-iraq/_4297/

A Catholic mission organization reports that since 2003, the year Saddam Hussein was overthrown, 1,960 Christians have been killed in Iraq and nearly half have fled their homes, either to safer regions of Iraq such as Kurdistan or have left the country entirely.

their is no provisional authority any longer.

so becuase there is not a thing called the occupation authority it's not an occupation? we still have troops there and still are sending tons and tons of money there. Find me someone who says that we are not occupying iraq and afghanistan.

you may feel it's an entirely benevolent enterprise but it's still an occupation. the word isn't an adjective, it's a noun.

We destroyed AQI, they no longer have a base in Iraq,

thye they had no base there before we went in. are you saying al queda had a BASE in iraq. like they had in iraq under the taliban?? No one claims this. Do yo uhave any pictures of saddam and bin laden leading big groups of al queda? how about pictures of saddam polishing some WMD's?

And how you group all muslims together as an anti-american block just shows your ignorance on middle eastern issues.

you are interpretting your facts wrong. YOu are trying to say that iraqis who don't approve of attacks on US troops are pro US. two different things. You can be against violence toward US soldiers and be opposed to US foreign policy in the middle east. Most muslims are oppsed to US foreign policy in the middle east. that Al queda is ALSO opposed to US foreign policy does not make people who agree with them members of al queda. I'm for states rights, it doesn't mean I am a member of the KKK.



http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/22956/

Poll Finds Policy, Values Hurt U.S. in Muslim WorldARCHIVE :: Saturday, May 19, 2007

By Tamika Petty - The extent to which Muslims in four countries dislike American foreign policy and the U.S. as a whole is disheartening, officials said after a briefing about a new poll of Muslims abroad.
Washington, D.C. - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - infoZine -

During a hearing Thursday on declining approval for American foreign policy in Muslim countries, Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, discussed the poll results.

"We did indeed find negative views toward the U.S. government, even though the governments surveyed ... have a positive relationship with the U.S.," Kull said.

Suspicions about the reasons for invading Iraq and U.S. policy toward Islam, Kull said many Muslims abroad have concluded "the U.S. does not live up to its values."

Out of the four countries PIPA polled - Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia - Egyptians have the worst view of the United States' goals.

. And you have zero evidence to suggest Saddam knew nothing about Ansar al Islam

I have the evidence from the CIA report that I cited. and again, why would he harbour an alqueda member POST 9/11?? even if he agreed with them that would be nuts. it makes no sense at all. and he didn't. Zarqawi, according to our government at least, did NOT have any relation with saddam hussein. Do you have information besides what they have at the Pentagon?

Iranian military presence in southern Iraq.

I didn't say Iran had a military presence in iraq. the PEOPLE of these countries, including the leaders, are bothe shia muslims. Ayatollah Sistani, the most influential cleric in Iraq, was in Iran during the Saddam years. He has met with Iranian leaders many times, he has NEVER met with American leaders.

the holy shrines in places like Karbala are like mecca for shias from Iran. the relationship between iraq and Iran was bad when saddam was in power. it is now very good. Nouri Al maliki is not "iraq". he is one person albeit a powerful one IN iraq. There has even been a term invented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi'ite_Crescent . It doesn't stop at the Iraqi boarders.

Iran and Iraq are close allies.


and you still haven't told me wether your "friends" are from the internet or real life.

 

[The Patriot]

You have such small tunnel vision on foreign policy that you completely miss the big picture of how the world works. Myself, and many RPF members are people of "big picture" intellects and we use them.



Why should I be concerned about Israel? Why are you so concerned about Israel? Aren't you an American? I am. Unfortunately, those that support your ideal neo-con foreign policy aren't Americans. They're Zionists first, Americans second...or third....or maybe not at all. I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again. Non-religious people don't care about mullah this and Israel that. You're advocating religious war to protect a foreign country but using my children's future as your springboard. Fuck that.



You obviously have no idea how the CIA operates and you trust the media way too much.



The Queen can do any damn thing she wants. You really don't know much about the real world do ya? Debating with someone with such a narrow world view is frustrating.



Uh you said they were spreading democracy or freedom movements or whatever. You're wrong and anyone reading this thread knows it, no matter how hard you try to twist our of your own comment.



Again you obviously have no idea how the CIA works. Watch that video I linked to. It explains it all very clearly.

See this is why I hate arguing with neo-cons. Not only will you stick to your Fox News soundbites, having done NO RESEARCH of your own, you will argue the same failed points endlessly as if your life depends on it. I don't understand it. More Americans have died in the Iraq and Afghan wars then all those lost on 9/11. We've done exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do and start bankrupting ourselves. But somehow you find it acceptable to invade yet another country. And for what? Because Ahmadinejad isn't a great president? Please. You're an Israel-firster and everyone here knows it. You only want Iran attacked to protect Israel. You don't care if it means $10/gallon gas prices, more dead Americans and more money pissed away on foreigners that don't care about us. It's madness! Im done with this thread. Ill let the other posters mop you up. The link is my sig should be read by all!

"Big picture" intellect? you have yet to use it. More than anything else, you talk big, but have little to show for it in the way of evidence.

I am concerned because I don't want to see a western ally destroyed, nor do I wish to see friendly arab states destroyed, nor do I wish to see ourselves attacked by Iran terrorist surrogates. You are merely using faux-nationalism to cloak your ignorance on issues. You aren't more American than I am.

How does the CIA operate? What is your proof those millions of Iranians who were protesting, being arrested, and being killed were lying, and are continuing to lie? Are they just being paid off? What is your proof that they are part of a CIA plot? I trust the twitters from Iranians, the AP, BBC, and Reuters, and there is no reason not to trust them, unless you can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary. You just don't believe them because they don't fit your warped world view and you are incredibly paranoid.

The Queen of England cannot do any of the things I listed, if she can, please provide evidence.

No research? I am the only one who has provided links, none of which have been from Fox News, you just keep talking out of your a** and giving me a holier than thou attitude. And of course you won't keep debating, because I have beaten you on the issues and you are an ignorant boob incapable of holding an intelligent conversation. At least Lester, though wrong, is informed to a certain degree and can defend his points, and I will respond to him later. I actually have some respect for him, where as I have no respect for you.

 

[someperson]

lol allies. lol friendly states. there's an oxymoron. This thread has become comedy... an unintentional mockery of the philosophy of foreign interventionism. Well, unintentional by some

 

[The Patriot]

So you admit that religious minorities aren't protected? But you just said they are living a thriving. You made a quick drift from thriving to persecuted, glad you are seeing things my way now.

Why would I want to live in Iraq? America is much better, and no one ever suggested there was a comparison, once again, you are creating strawmen.