IRAN

blackascoal said:
Granted, but you should apologize.

That was a nasty thing to say to a woman.

My point is that you are smarter than that.
Click to expand...

If it was someone that I thought had a shred of intellectual honesty and integrity about her, I would. she doesn't, so I can't bring myself to do that. My apologies to you if that lessens your opinion of me.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If it was someone that I thought had a shred of intellectual honesty and integrity about her, I would. she doesn't, so I can't bring myself to do that. My apologies to you if that lessens your opinion of me.
Click to expand...

Then I apologize to Desh for you my brother .. because I still believe you are better than that.
 
Mottleydude said:
It does but it was also a knee jerk response on my part. I thought things through and edited my original post.
Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning the intelligence of the question bother. The fact that it answers itself with the obvious was sweet.

That being said, I don't think it's a fair arrangement to require Iran to forgo it's nuclear ambitions as long as Israel is free to pursue any weapons they choose. It would be like requiring that indians only fight with bow and arrows against cowboys who have guns. Of course cowboys didn't want indians to have guns.

Why should Iran depend on "faith" that Israel won't attack them instead of their own ability to defend themselves.

Why should the world continue to pretend that Israel doesn't have nukes? The reason we pretend is because it leads to a very obvious hypocrisy in our position.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
he means that given the slightest opportunity, you'd suck Obamas dick just so you could hear him talk in person.
Click to expand...

Hey! Just think about it? If you were to suck Obama's dick, just to listen to him speak....and since he is a politician after all.....you could hear two of the greatest lies in the world at the same time.

"I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help you."

and

"I promise not to cum in your mouth."

Seriously dude...calling Desh a cock sucker...out of line dude. That wasn't necessary.
 
blackascoal said:
I wasn't questioning the intelligence of the question bother. The fact that it answers itself with the obvious was sweet.

That being said, I don't think it's a fair arrangement to require Iran to forgo it's nuclear ambitions as long as Israel is free to pursue any weapons they choose. It would be like requiring that indians only fight with bow and arrows against cowboys who have guns. Of course cowboys didn't want indians to have guns.

Why should Iran depend on "faith" that Israel won't attack them instead of their own ability to defend themselves.

Why should the world continue to pretend that Israel doesn't have nukes? The reason we pretend is because it leads to a very obvious hypocrisy in our position.
Click to expand...

Well you make a good point. My thinking is that acceptance of a two state solution would negate the need for nuclear arms building as would a US/Iranian strategic partnership. The trade potential with Iran is huge. It would be a tough sell but a strong Iran would not need nuclear weapons to defend it self from Israel.

Tough question you ask there.
 
blackascoal said:
I wasn't questioning the intelligence of the question bother. The fact that it answers itself with the obvious was sweet.

That being said, I don't think it's a fair arrangement to require Iran to forgo it's nuclear ambitions as long as Israel is free to pursue any weapons they choose. It would be like requiring that indians only fight with bow and arrows against cowboys who have guns. Of course cowboys didn't want indians to have guns.

Why should Iran depend on "faith" that Israel won't attack them instead of their own ability to defend themselves.

Why should the world continue to pretend that Israel doesn't have nukes? The reason we pretend is because it leads to a very obvious hypocrisy in our position.
Click to expand...

I know but it wasn't what I meant to say and it clouded my thinking with an ad hominin attack and it didn't answer Wilton's queston which was poor form on my part.

That conservative foreign policy does not presently have a lot of credibility is pretty self evident and I should have left it at that and continued on with answering Wilton's question, which is why I edited it.
 
Mottleydude said:
I know but it wasn't what I meant to say and it clouded my thinking with an ad hominin attack and it didn't answer Wilton's queston which was poor form on my part.

That conservative foreign policy does not presently have a lot of credibility is pretty self evident and I should have left it at that and continued on with answering Wilton's question, which is why I edited it.
Click to expand...

Demonstrates your intelligence my good brother.

You're an honest debater.
 
Mottleydude said:
Well you make a good point. My thinking is that acceptance of a two state solution would negate the need for nuclear arms building as would a US/Iranian strategic partnership. The trade potential with Iran is huge. It would be a tough sell but a strong Iran would not need nuclear weapons to defend it self from Israel.

Tough question you ask there.
Click to expand...

If Iran launched a nuclear weapon at Israel, the US would intercede.

If Israel launched a nuke at Iran, the US would defend that, irrespective of how horrific and unnecessary it may be.

That's not a good deal for the Iranian people.

They are right to seek membership in the SCO.
 
blackascoal said:
If Iran launched a nuclear weapon at Israel, the US would intercede.

If Israel launched a nuke at Iran, the US would defend that, irrespective of how horrific and unnecessary it may be.

That's not a good deal for the Iranian people.

They are right to seek membership in the SCO.
Click to expand...

That's the part that frustrates me with US policy towards Isreal. We do shit that is in Israels interest and not our own. It's insane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top