Iran caught red-handed shipping weapons to the Taliban

[CptStern]

it's ok for us so it must be ok for them,right?


typical stern BS:upstare:

you completely missed my point

 

[15357]

Our survival and continued prosperity is far too important for issues of "right" and "wrong" to be the most important concerns.

Quoted for the mother****ing truth. Seriously. If bombing Iran helps my countrymen into a safer haven of freedom, than I'd strap a rifle and join the airborne.

F*ck these point-of-view debates. Who cares about the rest of the world? It's the freedom, and the countries that endorse it, that are improtant. All other priorities are secondry to the preservation of our democratic freedom.

 

[Baratos]

Our survival and continued prosperity is far too important for issues of "right" and "wrong" to be the most important concerns.

.....Wow. Thats exactly the same logic used by Stalin when he built concentration camps in Siberia, and then sent innocent civilians into the far north without clothing. And the same reasoning used by the people who drove my family out of Poland, and convinced my godfather to join the Third Reich.

Congrats. You win a totalitarian cookie.

 

[Gunner]

I'd strap a rifle and join the airborne.

I wish you would already.

 

[Darkside55]

nuke'm

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

And that's all I have to say about that.

Thats your solution to everything.

 

[15357]

I wish you would already.

Hey, me too, but I have to finish university to go CO.

And that's all I have to say about that.

<3

 

[Jintor]

Quoted for the mother****ing truth. Seriously. If bombing Iran helps my countrymen into a safer haven of freedom, than I'd strap a rifle and join the airborne.

F*ck these point-of-view debates. Who cares about the rest of the world? It's the freedom, and the countries that endorse it, that are improtant. All other priorities are secondry to the preservation of our democratic freedom.

Would you commit genocide for your country's freedom?

 

[Tagaziel]

Quoted for the mother****ing truth. Seriously. If bombing Iran helps my countrymen into a safer haven of freedom, than I'd strap a rifle and join the airborne.

F*ck these point-of-view debates. Who cares about the rest of the world? It's the freedom, and the countries that endorse it, that are improtant. All other priorities are secondry to the preservation of our democratic freedom.

I find Numbers' statements highly amusing, as it was one of the communism taglines: "Bringing freedom on the tips of our bayonets".

 

[15357]

Would you commit genocide for your country's freedom?

Well.... that kinda depends. You'll have a hard time convincing me that people with certain racial charecteristics must die for freedom.

I find Numbers' statements highly amusing, as it was one of the communism taglines: "Bringing freedom on the tips of our bayonets".

The commies had to do something right.

 

[Gunner]

Numbers, one day you'll wake up and you'll realize that your fascination for all this military/patriotism bullshit was a stupid mistake. You can be sure of it.

 

[Jintor]

Well.... that kinda depends. You'll have a hard time convincing me that people with certain racial charecteristics must die for freedom.

The commies had to do something right.

The Nazi's had to do something right.

Hey, this game is fun! Someone replace the group with another group and we can use this in every arguement forever.

 

[No Limit]

Anyone else get depressed when they read posts by nemesis, aka repiv, and similar hate filled posts by numbers? This makes me realize that there are actually people out there still that share the exact same philosophy as Hitler and Stalin. Its okay to kill by large numbers, ok to commit terrorist acts, as long as the people killed are not "us". Simply unbelievable.

 

[CptStern]

well, Nemesis is a partisan fool, so we can take everything he says with a grain of salt ..ok make that a boulder of salt, repIV just hates anyone who doesnt submit to cultural normas, there is no idenity except national identity; he also pushes text book conservatism often overlooking logic or ethics in pursuit of unattainable goals ..and numbers is a troll who likes to throw in rediculous ideas like killing everyone so that the state survives oblivious to the fact that if the shit ever did hit the fan he's on the losing side by default ..better join the military soon Numbers before you're stuck in the "worker" caste when the shit finally hits the fan ..stock up on butane, cigarrette lighters, oily rags, empty glass bottles .. you're going to need them

 

[15357]

Anyone else get depressed when they read posts by nemesis, aka repiv, and similar hate filled posts by numbers? This makes me realize that there are actually people out there still that share the exact same philosophy as Hitler and Stalin. Its okay to kill by large numbers, ok to commit terrorist acts, as long as the people killed are not "us". Simply unbelievable.

It's not that simple. I'm saying that there are times when one must kill and destroy, for the prosperity of one's country.

well, Nemesis is a partisan fool, so we can take everything he says with a grain of salt ..ok make that a boulder of salt, repIV just hates anyone who doesnt submit to cultural normas, there is no idenity except national identity; he also pushes text book conservatism often overlooking logic or ethics in pursuit of unattainable goals ..and numbers is a troll who likes to throw in rediculous ideas like killing everyone so that the state survives oblivious to the fact that if the shit ever did hit the fan he's on the losing side by default ..better join the military soon Numbers before you're stuck in the "worker" caste when the shit finally hits the fan ..stock up on butane, cigarrette lighters, oily rags, empty glass bottles .. you're going to need them

And you sir, are a evil socialist saboteur bent on the complete and total destruction of the great democratic freedoms that we are blessed with.

 

[CptStern]

And you sir, are a evil socialist saboteur bent on the complete and total destruction of the great democratic freedoms that we are blessed with.

well I agree with the evil part but not so much the saboteur part ..I mean I wouldnt plant the bombs/sabotage myself ..I'd get peons like you to do my work for me ..for the glory of the resistence ..meh I can come up with some fiery speech that'll make the unwashed masses do my bidding ..I mean they're easy: promise them a few freedoms, a chicken in every pot and voila! instant worker caste willing to die for MY ideology ..it's exactly what the state does anyways except I dont lie/kill my allies as much

 

[Asknoone]

Numbers go get laid. You crazy little lunatic of a Korean you.

 

[15357]

well I agree with the evil part but not so much the saboteur part ..I mean I wouldnt plant the bombs/sabotage myself ..I'd get peons like you to do my work for me ..for the glory of the resist6ence ..meh I can come up with some fiery speech that'll make the unwashed masses do my bidding ..I mean they're easy, promise them a few freedoms, a chicken in every pot and voila! instant worker caste willing to die for MY ideology ..it's exactly what the state does anyways except I dont lie/kill my allies as much

..........


You know, it's just too bad that you're on the wrong side. The Right could do with you...

Numbers go get laid. You crazy little lunatic of a Korean you.

Not till I marry, thank you very much.

 

[CptStern]

..........


You know, it's just too bad that you're on the wrong side. The Right could do with you...

yes I would have made a good albeit benelovent tyrant ..the common people are very easy to manipulate ..hell I do it now and I'm not even a member of parliament

Not till I marry, thank you very much.

lol, you're in for surprise ..hopefully she'll be more experieced than you or it will be like a naked version of pin the tail on the donkey

"is that it?"

"no goddam it, a little higher"



anyways dont deny yourself a huge part of human experiece till you're married, you may have regrets later on ...I got it all out of my system years before I got married ..I'm not even interested in anyone else because I've already been there done that ..a few of my friends who got married early are now divorced ..the one who got married to his first girlfriend recently had a mid life crisis and had an affair

 

[Nemesis6]

So what is your opinion on this, Stern? Is it a good thing that Iran is doing this or is it a bad thing?

 

[CptStern]

what does my opinion have to do with anything? what's your opinion as to why the US is doing the exact same thing as the iranians? support terrorism much?

I dont see things as black and white therefore I'm not going to make an assessment based on this one event ..I'd much rather look at the entire history before jumping to conclusions ..you on the other hand, never get past the headline and accept it verbatim so long as it adheres to your narrowly defined regid and uncompromising pov

 

[Nemesis6]

I'm pretty sure I responded with my POV when you asked me: It's a bad thing that civilians have to die as a consequence, but it's justified if the Iranian regime falls. Now what about you?

 

[CptStern]

I'm pretty sure I responded with my POV when you asked me: It's a bad thing that civilians have to die as a consequence, but it's justified if the Iranian regime falls. Now what about you?

so terrorism is justified because f regime change ..once again you legitimise every single terrorist attack from israel to 9/11 ..way to make your bias so apparent

"terrorism is ok so long as it' us that do it" <- how can anyone live with this idiotic partisan pov? you seem to be fine with it

and no terrorism is NEVER justified

 

[Nemesis6]

I'm fine with it because it's my opinion, but hey, what do I know, I'm a racist. Now, you still haven't given me your POV.

 

[No Limit]

Anyone see the irony (or I guess I should I say hypocrisy) in any of this:

Well, better a Hebrew boy than a terror sympathizer, I guess.
...
You really hit the bottom this time.

A few posts later:

"terrorism is ok so long as it' us that do it" <- how can anyone live with this idiotic partisan pov? you seem to be fine with it

I'm fine with it because it's my opinion

What an asshole.

 

[Nemesis6]

Oh you got me good. I'm fine with my OPINION. You really are an idiot, you know that?

 

[CptStern]

I'm fine with it because it's my opinion, but hey, what do I know, I'm a racist.

look you simpleton, I've already proved I've never called you a racist so shut up already it just makes you look like an even bigger fool

and I never want to hear you say one ****ing word about jews dying in a terrorist attack because you've already ADMITTED you support terrorism therefore your opinion is that of a child who cant see the obvious hypocrisy if it were beaten into you. Imho you should be banned from the politics forum because your posts are that of an immature 11 year old who sees the world according to his own idiotic pov with no room for debate ..so arguing with you is completely useless because even when I hand you your ass on a silver platter you're too stupid to recognise when you've been defeated

Now, you still haven't given me your POV.

probably because you wouldnt understand it since your assessment of the situation is tempered by partisan rhetoric that doesnt take anything into account besides it's own misguided and stupid pov

 

[Asknoone]

You are not to call people assholes No Limit. Warned.

 

[Nemesis6]

Hypocracy might be my speciality, but ad-hominem and assumptions are yours. Now, time for the train of rememberance. I responded to a topic about slavery by recalling a segment in a South Park episode, and you responded: "yes because apologising for racism should somehow be seen as an excercise in sycophantism? that is what you are suggesting ..no offense but you're an idiot" <- This proves that you're assumptious.

When someone called you on that being rude, you responded:

"no try to read more into it ..it's far more complex than just remembering a tv show ..but I'm not going to bother explaining it as it should be self evident" <- And there you discovered my apparent complex underlying racist thought masquaraded as a simple quote. Feel stupid? This not the first time. This is just your accusation that I hate black people, now next up is a bigger one: That I hate Muslims. Should I start digging?

Ok, time for me to make an accusation of my own against you, Stern: You are hot-head as witnessed by your every post. You have a problem with insulting people, and you accuse them of whatever you can pull out of the hat, support for terrorism being the latest one.

 

[CptStern]

Hypocracy might be my speciality, but ad-hominem and assumptions are yours. Now, time for the train of rememberance. I responded to a topic about slavery by recalling a segment in a South Park episode, and you responded: "yes because apologising for racism should somehow be seen as an excercise in sycophantism? that is what you are suggesting ..no offense but you're an idiot" <- This proves that you're assumptious.

and the above proves you're an ass ..you said I called you racist PROVE it shut up, the above statement assumes you're an idiot, nothing more ..however I do believe it shouldnt be an assumption ..because well ..you're an idiot

When someone called you on that being rude, you responded:

"no try to read more into it ..it's far more complex than just remembering a tv show ..but I'm not going to bother explaining it as it should be self evident" <- And there you discovered my apparent complex underlying racist thought masquaraded as a simple quote. Feel stupid?

heheheh I shouldnt be the one feeeling stupid ..agai where is the exact instance where I call you racist? but seriously how many times do we have to go over this? I mean you couldnt prove it then and you cant, so why avoid everything else I've said in favour of this made up insult? it couldnt be because you cant counter what I've said on the issue could it? nah, Nemesis avoiding facts? that's unpossible

This not the first time. This is just your accusation that I hate black people, now next up is a bigger one: That I hate Muslims. Should I start digging?

yes you should because you havent proved a thing, just wasted people's time ...try to stay focused Nemesis

Ok, time for me to make an accusation of my own against you, Stern

go right ahead, my conscience is clear

You are hot-head as witnessed by your every post.

ya well I have little patience for stupidity

You have a problem with insulting people, and you accuse them of whatever you can pull out of the hat,

support for terrorism being the latest one.

are you out of your freaking mind? YOU admitted supoort for terrorism ..there is NO accusation ..you said:

[/quote=cptstern]"terrorism is ok so long as it' us that do it" <- how can anyone live with this idiotic partisan pov? you seem to be fine with it

I'm fine with it because it's my opinion

what else could that possibly mean? you said it yourself: you are fine with terrorism so long as it suits your agenda

 

[Tagaziel]

Mmmmm, tasty flame war!

You know Stern, you should pwn people for a living. Seriously.

 

[CptStern]

heh [un]fortunately people in real life are not as willing to prove their studity so pwning doesnt come as often as I'd like ..although I hear that in this place called the interents everyone with an opinion is an idiot! so who knows, maybe one day I'll sally forth and stake out a claim on this new frontier: the Internets


anyways I should know better than to argue with nemesis it's like peeing in the wind ..anywhere you stand you still get peed on ..interpret that as an admission to liking golden showers but I think it holds true to an extent ..you're only as good as your opponent

 

[Dan]

Israel are neither volatile nor unpredictable

Yeah, Israel is all sugarcanes and lollypops, anyone could have seen the war on Lebanon coming from a mile away.

btw Nemesis, calling someone on the internet an idiot is the ultimate argument, it proves that you are right beyond any sliver of a doubt.

And P.S. I hope that this century see's the death of nationalism. With the speed of modern communication, there is really no need for individual nations. We are pretty much all connected now. Globalism is here.

 

[repiV]

This strikes me as worryingly amoral.

It's an amoral strategy for an amoral world. The world is neither driven nor defined by right and wrong, but by self-interest, fighting (politically, militarily or otherwise) and greed. Try to be the nice guy in the world stage and you'll get ****ed royally, just as you would in any competitive environment. Only in this case, you'll pay with the lives of your citizens instead of your ego or finances.
That doesn't mean there isn't any room for doing the right thing when there is scope to do so.

There is other diplomatic approach we can use in stead of this nasty means.


Perhaps you may think the USSR is a greater threat to the USA. But that certainly does not apply to Iran.

I think you missed my point - which was solely that the US intervention in Afghanistan could well have been necessary, despite the way it has obviously backfired. If there had been no Korea, no Vietnam, no Afghanistan etc...would the USSR now be ruling half the world with an iron fist?
Unlikely, but I couldn't possibly say for sure and I have the benefit of hindsight. Likewise back in the 1960s noone could possibly predict the unaided collapse of the Soviet Union. What's the greater evil, a few bloody wars or global tyranny on an unprecedented scale?

At least you should understand, terrorists can bomb the shit out of you at your home or your working place while Iran won't. Iran has nuke but the people in her Government are not completely insane. They won't do it. Which one poses greater threat to you? I bet it is terrorist who might be beside you at anytime, any place. Also, which one is easier to deal with, a stationed country which relies on international trade and aid, or a shiftable terrorist organisation which has no diplomatic contact with the western world? I bet you have your answer.

I'm not particularly concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities, but action must be taken because otherwise it sends a message that they can get away with it and it will escalate until they become a real problem. Best to nip things in the bud before they get out of hand (Hitler being a prime of example of when we didn't do that and paid the price). A lot of international relations is about letting people know where the boundaries are and the consequences of crossing the line.
Also, Iran supports these shiftable terrorist organisations...war by proxy.

Supporting local terrorists or ethnics organizations can achieve nothing but erect more enemies aganist the US Government. It both turns Countries in Middle-East and erects hostile groups against America. So the policy of The US Government is erecting more enemies and turning America into a place unsafe, a place that is the prime target for terrorist attack.

True. I'm not defending neocon foreign policy here (apart from Afghanistan post-9/11, that was absolutely the right call). That said, I don't subscribe to the viewpoint that evil America is oppressing the world. The Muslim world manages to oppress itself just fine without any intervention from the West.

What? It invades contiguous countries without a cause.

So being attacked isn't a cause?

9/11 was justified, as was 7/11 by that line of logic. In their eyes it was necessary

Neither were necessary or justified. And I don't see what someone else's interpretation of necessary and justified has to do with anything - your argument is by default invalid because morality is every bit as subjective, if not significantly more subjective, than necessity.
In their eyes 9/11 was also morally justified. I guess that makes it okay?

The use of force (military force, the force of law or whatever kind of force) for reasons of morality can be the most oppressive use of force there is. The totalitarian state that denies you your rights because it's the right thing to do is far worse than the totalitarian state that does so because it wants power, because it will continue to oppress with a fully clear conscience. Kind of like the faux-liberal movement of people like Blair.

Was it morally correct to support Stalin's brutal regime during WW2? No.
Was it necessary? Absolutely.

If we had done the morally correct thing instead of the necessary thing, we would have lost World War 2.

nonsense ..utter hogwash ..they dont it because it's neccessary for survival ..the coup in 53 wasnt necessary for survival nor was the arming of the mujhidheen terrorists during the 80's

[/quote]

Perhaps they saw it as necessary to weaken the Soviet Union at every opportunity. How can you possibly make that call, without being there at the time and knowing what they knew?

It's certainly heading that way based on Amnesty internationals reports, not of course that you pay attention to such things because they are no doubt a 'hotbed' for Arab sympathisers, and so shouldn't be trusted. In fact I suspect you'll be wanting them all rounded up into happy camps for daring to spread such lies. :dozey:

I'm pretty sure I brought forward the notion of Israel making peace with their surrounding neighbours and the Palestinians by withdrawing from the occupied territories, abandoning the settlements build on those lands and staying out of Palestinians affairs some time back. IIRC, neither you or the other one had much of a counter argument to that suggestion beyond the usual. In all seriousness the approach so far of occupation hasn't gotten Israel anywhere in terms of a lasting peace. In 40 years Israel have allowed 2 generations of Palestinians to be brought up who know nothing of freedom and everything of tyranny. Perhaps whilst there exists a generation who still remember a time before the troubles it might be worthwhile making that move, in another 40 years there will be no turning back.

The last time they withdrew and offered peace, the Palestinians moved in and used the West Bank as a staging ground to attack Israeli cities from.
Not to mention the Palestinians take every opportunity they can to intentionally kill Israeli civilians and are generally just scumbags, voted in a terrorist organisation in Lebanon that wants to have Israel wiped off the map and I think I can understand why Israel don't feel particularly obliged to extend another olive branch to the savages. **** them.

.....Wow. Thats exactly the same logic used by Stalin when he built concentration camps in Siberia, and then sent innocent civilians into the far north without clothing. And the same reasoning used by the people who drove my family out of Poland, and convinced my godfather to join the Third Reich.

Congrats. You win a totalitarian cookie.

You're an idiot. All nations are driven primarily by necessity and self-interest. Anything else is purely secondary, and that doesn't just apply to oppressive states.

Anyone else get depressed when they read posts by nemesis, aka repiv, and similar hate filled posts by numbers? This makes me realize that there are actually people out there still that share the exact same philosophy as Hitler and Stalin. Its okay to kill by large numbers, ok to commit terrorist acts, as long as the people killed are not "us". Simply unbelievable.

First of all, I'm not nemesis. Secondly, I bear absolutely no resemblance to him.
And if you think I share any kind of philosophy with either Hitler or Stalin, you're even more stupid than I originally thought. If I had something in common with either, as you insinuate, then I would be the one cheering for the Islamic terrorist groups. Project much?

wrepIV just hates anyone who doesnt submit to cultural normas, there is no idenity except national identity; he also pushes text book conservatism often overlooking logic or ethics in pursuit of unattainable goals

Total bollocks.
And actually what I "push" is traditional liberalism, before it became tainted by the Mary Whitehouses and Segolene Royales of this world...

Yeah, Israel is all sugarcanes and lollypops, anyone could have seen the war on Lebanon coming from a mile away.

If your elected government is a terrorist group that vows to destroy a neighbouring country, don't be surprised when that neighbouring country comes to **** you up.

And P.S. I hope that this century see's the death of nationalism. With the speed of modern communication, there is really no need for individual nations. We are pretty much all connected now. Globalism is here.

Erm, great, we can communicate instantaneously around the world. It doesn't change the fact that world cultures are so inherently different that you could live in China for 20 years and still not understand the Chinese.

 

[CptStern]

Neither were necessary or justified. And I don't see what someone else's interpretation of necessary and justified has to do with anything - your argument is by default invalid because morality is every bit as subjective, if not significantly more subjective, than necessity.

nope, because my point was within the cotext of the subject at hand: this thread

In their eyes 9/11 was also morally justified. I guess that makes it okay?

how do you not see that that's what you are in fact saying, not me ..I havent given my opinion either way so there's nothing to go by

The use of force (military force, the force of law or whatever kind of force) for reasons of morality can be the most oppressive use of force there is.

yes however funding/arming terrorists to do your bidding is not war, it's terrorism

The totalitarian state that denies you your rights because it's the right thing to do is far worse than the totalitarian state that does so because it wants power, because it will continue to oppress with a fully clear conscience.

both those statements can be attributed to the US

Was it morally correct to support Stalin's brutal regime during WW2? No.
Was it necessary? Absolutely.

again nowhere near the same thing ...let me simplify it:

"if you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" - George W Bush

If we had done the morally correct thing instead of the necessary thing, we would have lost World War 2.

again regime change was not necessary; not for national security, not for humanitarian grounds, not for international peace

 

[repiV]

nope, because my point was within the cotext of the subject at hand: this thread

And how within this thread can you draw the conclusion that because destabilising the Iranian regime could be considered necessary, 9/11 must also be necessary?
The world isn't some Buddhist force kept in perfect karma by equal amounts of necessity and justification around the globe. We must do what it takes to stay ahead of the loonies who want to bring us down, or we will suffer. It's really as simple as that.

how do you not see that that's what you are in fact saying, not me ..I havent given my opinion either way so there's nothing to go by

I said absolutely nothing of the sort.
Furthermore, your argument was that if it's ok to do things because we consider them necessary then it's ok for our enemies to do the same. Newsflash: that applies equally to any given motivation including morality. You have no point.

yes however funding/arming terrorists to do your bidding is not war, it's terrorism

Yeah, but it isn't the same public relations disaster as going to war with Iran would be. Tricky situation, no?

both those statements can be attributed to the US

Yes they can. Unfortunately, they can be attributed to any supposedly "free" nation.
The US is still infinitely more free than any banana republic or Islamic theocracy out there.

again nowhere near the same thing ...let me simplify it:

"if you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" - George W Bush

And here we have the prime example of a world leader saying something in order to advance his self-interest rather than as a statement of belief. So you're proving my point.

again regime change was not necessary; not for national security, not for humanitarian grounds, not for international peace

Probably not. Could they have known that then?
Either way, evidently it's not as clear cut as doing the "right" thing.

 

[repiV]

and no terrorism is NEVER justified

Not that I am disagreeing with you here in any major way, but to take a fictional example, I'm curious as to whether you think V in V for Vendetta was justified in doing what he did?
Providing you've read/seen it, of course.

 

[CptStern]

And how within this thread can you draw the conclusion that because destabilising the Iranian regime could be considered necessary, 9/11 must also be necessary?

why do people have such a hard time understand what I've posted ..especially when it's a single sentence or two. Again I didnt draw any conclusion ..all I did was transfer your logic to the terrorists in the hopes that you'd see how esily they could take your logic and justify their very existence ..not once did I give an opinion

The world isn't some Buddhist force kept in perfect karma by equal amounts of necessity and justification around the globe.

alright enough dramatics, this isnt an underhanded backroom deal we're talking about ..this is supporting TERRORISM ..exctly what the bush admin has been saying they've been fighting

We must do what it takes to stay ahead of the loonies who want to bring us down, or we will suffer.

so in other words if we fund terrorists who kill innocent civilians it's ok because we have moral superiority? you're completely off your rocker It's really as simple as that.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort.

yes you did, as soon as you defended the US' dealings with terrorists

Furthermore, your argument was that if it's ok to do things because we consider them necessary then it's ok for our enemies to do the same.

nope, you have it ass backards ..i'm saying that if it's not ok for them to support terrorism why is ok for us to do EXACTLY the same .

Newsflash: that applies equally to any given motivation including morality. You have no point.

yes welll you misinterpreted my statement so yes I do have a point

Yeah, but it isn't the same public relations disaster as going to war with Iran would be. Tricky situation, no?

so in other words, better to support terrorists rather than leap into an open war that will be unpopular ..ya that makes a heck of a lot of sense ..again how do you not see you are supporting terrorism?

Yes they can. Unfortunately, they can be attributed to any supposedly "free" nation.
The US is still infinitely more free than any banana republic or Islamic theocracy out there.

and? that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want but when someone else does the same they're criminals but not the US? ...right

And here we have the prime example of a world leader saying something in order to advance his self-interest rather than as a statement of belief. So you're proving my point.

how do you figure? he's stating official policy, the US strongarmed nations who supported terrorism like Libya ..they werent hollow words repIV

Probably not. Could they have known that then?

yes they did know

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Either way, evidently it's not as clear cut as doing the "right" thing.

not supporting terrorists is pretty clear cut to me:

"if you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" - George W Bush

 

[repiV]

why do people have such a hard time understand what I've posted ..especially when it's a single sentence or two. Again I didnt draw any conclusion ..all I did was transfer your logic to the terrorists in the hopes that you'd see how esily they could take your logic and justify their very existence ..not once did I give an opinion

Yes they could. Which is why it's so important for us to be strong and powerful enough to counter any potential enemy as people will do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons that don't make sense to anyone else. And so long as the threat of others taking extreme measures against us exists, we must be prepared to defend against them. This is what I've been trying to say all along - if you always do the "right" thing as a priority over the "necessary" thing, it will bite you in the arse.
It seems to me that you see the moral aspect of this to be the key factor, but I do not. I accept the fact that countries like Iran may have their own idea of necessity or justification and that we must be prepared to deal with such challenges as they arise. An army will kill you just as dead whether they were right or wrong.

alright enough dramatics, this isnt an underhanded backroom deal we're talking about ..this is supporting TERRORISM ..exctly what the bush admin has been saying they've been fighting

so in other words if we fund terrorists who kill innocent civilians it's ok because we have moral superiority? you're completely off your rocker It's really as simple as that.

No, I didn't say that. I said we must do what it takes to stay ahead, I didn't specify anything in particular - this goes back to the whole "necessary" versus "right" thing.

yes you did, as soon as you defended the US' dealings with terrorists

I didn't defend them.

nope, you have it ass backards ..i'm saying that if it's not ok for them to support terrorism why is ok for us to do EXACTLY the same .

Where have I said anything about it being ok for anyone to do anything? Like I said, we must account for the fact that others may not necessarily have the same definition of "acceptable" that we do.

yes welll you misinterpreted my statement so yes I do have a point

Seems I'm not the only one misinterpreting statements.

so in other words, better to support terrorists rather than leap into an open war that will be unpopular ..ya that makes a heck of a lot of sense ..again how do you not see you are supporting terrorism?

Leaping into that unpopular open war could cost lives at home in the way of further terrorist attacks, political fallout exacerbates any Islamic political victory, anti-war sentiments would undermine any war effort and allies would probably be lost.
It's an impossible situation to be in, and the preferred method of handling it will be largely determined on the value you place on the lives of Iranians versus the lives of your own citizens and the goals of your own country.
Not to mention that the US logistically could not go to war with Iran right now. War with Iran would be a complete and utter disaster on an unprecedented scale.
Assuming that something needs to be done, what exactly do you suggest?

and? that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want but when someone else does the same they're criminals but not the US? ...right

No?

how do you figure? he's stating official policy, the US strongarmed nations who supported terrorism like Libya ..they werent hollow words repIV

He's justifying his own policy and simultaneously being a total hypocrite. Thus, he speaks to further his own interest without regard to any kind of objective right or wrong.

yes they did know

Erm, I thought we were talking about supporting the Taleban against the USSR in Afghanistan, not Iraq. You know full well I oppose the war on Iraq as I have stated countless times, so why are you turning this into an Iraq discussion?

not supporting terrorists is pretty clear cut to me:

"if you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" - George W Bush

Yes, it sounds like he is supporting the "right" thing to the unwashed masses, but you and I both know he is carefully choosing his words to advance a certain agenda.

 

[Kadayi]

Anyone else get depressed when they read posts by nemesis, aka repiv, and similar hate filled posts by numbers? This makes me realize that there are actually people out there still that share the exact same philosophy as Hitler and Stalin. Its okay to kill by large numbers, ok to commit terrorist acts, as long as the people killed are not "us". Simply unbelievable.

Basically in the eyes of RepIV and Nemesis anything Israel does is completely justified because it is for the defence of Israel (even though they are the occupiers..). I find it quite tragic that neither of these two is actually Israeli (though they are Jewish apparently) and they won't acknowledge that maybe, just maybe the continued conflict/colonisation in Palestine isn't doing the Israelis and by association the wider Jewish community any favours internationally.

I'm all for Israel existing, but they (the Israelis) really need to forgive and forget past conflicts and withdraw completely out of Gaza and the Northern territories and let the Palestinians govern themselves without restrictions (unlike the Clinton era treaty). If after that Hamas or whomever kick off again, then I'd say the IDF are wholly justified in reigning terror down on them, but I'm not seeing it being so whilst the IDF and settlers continue to illegally occupy the Palestinian land. It's a back door attempt at colonisation through subjugation which stinks to high heaven tbh.