Iran's Nuclear Program May Have Military Dimensions

That was the wing of Hezbollah currently installed as the central government of Iraq, at US cost and with US backing.

So Iran, which has yet to succeed in getting its Hez guys in charge of even Lebanon, is running a poor second in the terrorist support sweepstakes - and that in the arena of their greatest involvement.

Just you. I'd lose my ten bucks with lots of people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not speaking to any of that, which you know, of course, being so smart and all. My entire issue was with the "peaceful theocracy" label. If you want to address that, please do so. If not, then you're trolling and make side speeches that have little or no relevance.

So, given the choice to clarify, you do not. Fine. My remarks stand then. Meanwhile, you continue to behave like a child and shun adult conversation, choosing instead to pontificate when not asked and then clamming up when encouraged -- all because everything must be on your own terms. If only the real world danced to your little drum...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this blather helps your argument how?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no argument with, Ice. He's been asked a question, given a chance to clarify. He won't. He picks and chooses what he discusses and how he discusses it. That's not how honest debate occurs.

 

Don't look now, it's the peaceful theocracy again!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8341737.stm

 

BBC News is a biased, western source; obviously out to get Iran.

~String

 

No, forget the hype for a moment and take a closer look. It`s no mystery that Israel is hell bent on attacking Iran, and that under these circumstances the creation of pretexts are to be expected and of course Israel has a particularly colorful history in this regard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Notable:

Who is peaceful and who is threatening war?

 

So, as usual, your trick is to fall back on criticizing Israel? My point with that link was to further refute your statement about a peaceful theocracy. You can admit you're wrong or I can keep embarrassing you. Or you can make an argument that peaceful theocracies ship weapons around the world. It's your choice.

 

It's not around the world. It's next door.

That's where their enemies, from around the world, have stationed their armies.

 

Thank you Captain literal.

Who has armies in Israel and Lebanon?

 

Israel. A country preparing as we speak to bomb Iran.

 

You have no valid refutation whatsoever. Iran has not initiated a war for more than a hundred years. Fact. Israel and the US has made war on numerous occasions in the last 20 years. Fact. I reiterate, Iran remains a peaceful nation whatever you prefer to describe it as.

 

I have to ask here: why again is this point relevant? Does Iran need to make war to impose its will on surrounding nations? Do they need to make war to influence global politics? Of course not. And has a nation that never made war in a preceding 100 year stretch then never made war following that period? Your above observations are pointless.

 

You need to learn how to follow an argument. I am not talking about what Israel and the US have done. I am refuting your ridiculous claim that Iran is a peaceful theocracy -- your words, not mine. Peaceful theocracies do not commit terrorist acts, which I have documented, nor do they ship weapons to proxies to make war.

What's your point? Like the above, you seem not to realize that I'm not talking about Israel. I am talking about Iran (the country listed in the topic of this thread). And you, like Straw, seem incapable of talking about Iran. Everything must come back to the US or Israel. Why don't you make an argument that Iran is a peaceful theocracy or butt out?

 

Normally speaking, countries whose entire military operations for centuries have been defending themselves against immediate and looming threats within or right on their borders, are not labeled "warlike" or "violent".

Now whether a country under attack, and defending itself, is "peaceful" or not, is a reasonable question. Maybe it depends on the means they choose. But it's not automatically out of line.

 

Of course there are never any guarantees. I am calling out certain posters on this forum who insist that Iran is not a peaceful nation/theocracy/whatever, by pointing out the aggressive, warmongering historical precedent of the VERY nations that accuse Iran of being a threat to peace. Clearly hypocritical and clearly ludicrous.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1.You are right in the sense that Iran has been involved in terrorist acts in the past, and may be supporting freedom fighters in some manner presently.
2. The shipping of weapons incident is not yet clear cut and seems to be another Israeli propaganda exercise based on a document, not shown to reporters - allegedly a cargo certificate that implicates a port in Iran. Lets see it then eh?

 

More on your theocrats ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/iran-tested-nuclear-warhead-design

You're looking at life through the wrong end of the telescope, but that's nothing new. I am not talking about "violent" or "warlike," either. So again, you continue to avoid the point. A peaceful theocracy does not preach hate -- IE the weekly "Death to Israel and America" -- and it does not send weapons to other countries, blow up embassies, kidnap and torture people and fight proxy wars with people. Unless, of course, you suppose Lebanon was a great, big threat to Iran, right?

I mean, Israel is a threat, but Iran knows Israel could never invade Iran and conquer it, so why keep picking at that scab? Iran, from day one, has posited itself as a revolutionary theocracy, intent on exporting that revolution. Go read some of the speeches from Khomeni and others. It's all there. It's not as if I am making this stuff up. And then, of course, we have the terrorism I mentioned above and have listed in greater detail elsewhere in this thread.

 

Not at all. The domestic policies of the Iranian government illustrate their less than humanitarian beliefs, so that there is little point to braying again and again about which countries have engaged in wars in the last 100 years. For example: was WWII an evil war, from the perspective of the Allies? Certainly not, but your simple threshold doesn't account for it.

 

Defense research and implementation is the indisputable right of every sovereign nation. So whats the big deal here?

Uh, you keep bringing up history. Point me to this weeks (or last weeks) "Death to Israel and America"?

Again, history. Anything current?