Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

9, I'm a warmonger? LOL! I figured you didn't read anything I wrote. You said Iran was not a threat. I was just pointing out how stupid that was. I never said we should start a war with them. It must be nice living in your own little world.

Just who is threatened by Iran? You? Do you wake up at night wondering just what Iran's gonna do to US tomorrow?
Know the difference b/n a threat and bullshit rhetoric...

[CuteOldGuy]

Ah, T9, you are becoming as entertaining as Longermonger. LOL! Did I bring up Iran? No. Are they a threat? Yes. Can they attack the US? No. Can they start a war in the middle east? Yes. Are they threatening war in the middle east? Yes. Would the US get involved in a middle eastern war? Yes.

My friend, I am not a master of bullshit, but I think I just met him. If you want to treat Iran like they are no more of a threat than Botswana or Luxembourg, go ahead. But you are not living in the real world.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ah, T9, you are becoming as entertaining as Longermonger. LOL! Did I bring up Iran? No. Are they a threat? Yes. Can they attack the US? No. Can they start a war in the middle east? Yes. Are they threatening war in the middle east? Yes. Would the US get involved in a middle eastern war? Yes.

My friend, I am not a master of bullshit, but I think I just met him. If you want to treat Iran like they are no more of a threat than Botswana or Luxembourg, go ahead. But you are not living in the real world.

Iran can't attack the US, so, how can they be a threat to the US. SO you want the US to continue to be the world's police force...... It's always the people who are too old to fight who are thumping their chests. You'd better stop before your pacemaker stops working.
I'll suck up not "living in the real world". Your "real world" is a manufactured one in which your opinion is fed to you by conservative pundits. I guess that that's what i get for assuming that you were anything but just another party-line parrot...

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! I've been protesting wars since 1812. Acknowledging they are a threat is not demanding that we blow them up. War is a result of failed diplomacy, or falling profits of war merchandisers. Iran is a threat. You are blind and an idiot if you don't see that. I think we should all we can to AVOID war with them, and the rest of the Middle East.

You keep trying to pigeonhole me. It's fun to watch.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL! I've been protesting wars since 1812. Acknowledging they are a threat is not demanding that we blow them up. War is a result of failed diplomacy, or falling profits of war merchandisers. Iran is a threat. You are blind and an idiot if you don't see that. I think we should all we can to AVOID war with them, and the rest of the Middle East.

You keep trying to pigeonhole me. It's fun to watch.

I'm glad for your protests. But you're as just as blind, and twice the idiot that I am for swallowing the "Iran is a threat" line. Let me guess: Iraq and North Korea is too. Acknowledging that they are a threat gives you war-mongers power. Acknowledgement is damned near approval. Iran is a "threat" b/c Ayatollah Khomeni took hostages and embarrassed the U.S. government. The OLD government: Regan, Casper Weinberger, and Dick Cheney Old. W was quoting his party line as well, acting out the republican presidential script. I find it amazing that you have so much knowledge of the political games that are played, yet you can't recognize the "manufactured threat that may require drastic measures" game. Wars generate income for people like Haliburton. "Threats" require that they be treated like "threats" and defense contracts and CIA operations get funded and contracted - again Haliburton and the like. One big game and somehow, you see the validity in their "threat" status. I'm more afraid of your old ass that I am of Iran. LOL. You're a bigger threat to the US than they will ever be. You want to know when Iran really become a threat -the day after Israel blow them to shit..

You keep talking in circles. They should make you old fogey, war-mongers fight your own wars instead of using the young men; I'd bet that all of the chest thumping would stop then. That'd be fun: The 82nd airborne division b/c the average age is 82. LOL.

[CuteOldGuy]

Ah, T9. You either can't or don't read. Think what you want and be happy.

[kcbigpapa]

T9, I agree with the rest, Iran is absolutely a threat. A nuclear Iran is extremely dangerous situation for the rest of the free world. I don't care that they don't have the capability to launch a missile that can reach us, but I do care that Iran has been the main supporter of the resistance against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this willingness to deal in and with terror, I think Iran would have no qualms about building a nuclear suitcase bomb to be detonated over here.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by thorough9

My head up my ass, huh? A british paper? What's the matter, dumbass, you couldn't find an American paper to support your bullshit opinion? Civility goes a long way.... You'll get it, when you give it, dumbass.....

Actually, no, I could not. The British press has been pretty much right on target when it comes to publishing articles regarding the US's foreign enemies and the foibles of the Bamster's administration. The US press is pretty much trying to salvage the remants of the Bamster to try to keep him in office, so they can't spend any time investigating the enemies of the US.

Oh, and I've been called worse by people that actually would be missed if their existence had not occurred - unlike you that, when presented evidence that can't be refuted, delve into personal attacks. Just keep your head where it's at and think happy thoughts.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

T9, I agree with the rest, Iran is absolutely a threat. A nuclear Iran is extremely dangerous situation for the rest of the free world. I don't care that they don't have the capability to launch a missile that can reach us, but I do care that Iran has been the main supporter of the resistance against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this willingness to deal in and with terror, I think Iran would have no qualms about building a nuclear suitcase bomb to be detonated over here.

Okay, but what are they doing, that any of us wouldn't do, if we were in their situation? For argument's sake... Would you allow someone to try and force you to be dependent upon them and their money and financial manipulations. Here's the real secret. Iran needs western money b/c they have no real infrastructure and have been under sanctions for quite a while. If they have nuclear capabilities, the Israeli threat is neutralized and they can refuse to sell oil to the West and still survive. there's the bomb: financial warfare - oil prices skyrocket overnight and Iran can "sanction" the West. You've got loads of nukes, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc, etc has nukes, but not Iran. Explain that. I'm an american, but i try and see it through their eyes every once in a while.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

Actually, no, I could not. The British press has been pretty much right on target when it comes to publishing articles regarding the US's foreign enemies and the foibles of the Bamster's administration. The US press is pretty much trying to salvage the remants of the Bamster to try to keep him in office, so they can't spend any time investigating the enemies of the US.

Oh, and I've been called worse by people that actually would be missed if their existence had not occurred - unlike you that, when presented evidence that can't be refuted, delve into personal attacks. Just keep your head where it's at and think happy thoughts.

yawn......

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ah, T9. You either can't or don't read. Think what you want and be happy.

I'll think what i want and not what is fed to me. Manchurian candidate...

[CuteOldGuy]

I admire that you think what you want, T9, and are not willing to allow facts to disturb your preconceived stereotypes. It is a peaceful place to be.

[JD Barleycorn]

What should Iran do? Do you mean the people or the religious masters of the realm? Two different things. The people like people everywhere would like to be left alone to raise their children and glean some happiness from life.
The people in charge believe in a islamic world brought about by strife and bloodshed. Their leader believes that by bringing about Armageddon that he will meet the 13th Iman and paradise will follow. Forget about the billions of dead muslims and non-muslms. They have the oil and they call the tune. Who exactly is oppressing Iran (except for their leadership)? It would have far cheaper, less controversial, and less threatening for Iran to build some oil refineries instead of nuclear weapons. If Iran was an open society they would be strategically located to become a powerhouse in the Middle East. They have a great deal of oil, an educated population, a young population, and sit on the most important sea lane in the world. The Shah made a large leap forward in the years that he was in power, why have they gone backwards in so many ways since the Ayatollahs took over?

The leadership of Iran is all about hatred of the west, non-muslims, and losing their power.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I admire that you think what you want, T9, and are not willing to allow facts to disturb your preconceived stereotypes. It is a peaceful place to be.

Where are the facts? What is, and is not, a threat is an opinion, a hypothesis, and there are certain qualifications: Do we share borders? Are they able to reach us logistically? Have they mobilized with the intent to engage? The answeres are No, NO, and NO. You wouldn't know a fact if it squated and took a shit on your quivering upper lip... Like I said, you're a bigger threat to the U.S. than Iran will ever be, you're just spouting what you've been told to spout, or programmed to.

You are just as uninformed and opininated as the rest of the neocons. Right-wing, ultra-conservative, foreign policy agendas, a fact does not make. W says that they're a threat after Cheney told him so, and after pulling a Palin and getting a "historical rundown" before a speech, LMAO, and now all of a sudden, Iran is a threat. When you're done with that shit, OOI, I've a large concrete structure that spans some "beachfront property" that you can get, if you act now, for next to nothing - pennies on the dollar. YOu're SOOoo hard to take seriously. If you're the OLD guy, i'd hate to meet the NEW dudes...

"Axis of Evil". LMAO, and you believed him. LOL. Probably his first exposure to WWII.
"Who were the Axis powers, Junior?"
"The Bad Guys! Good VS Evil" - as if any-damned-thing in foreign policy is that simple.... I'jots...

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What should Iran do? Do you mean the people or the religious masters of the realm? Two different things. The people like people everywhere would like to be left alone to raise their children and glean some happiness from life.
The people in charge believe in a islamic world brought about by strife and bloodshed. Their leader believes that by bringing about Armageddon that he will meet the 13th Iman and paradise will follow. Forget about the billions of dead muslims and non-muslms. They have the oil and they call the tune. Who exactly is oppressing Iran (except for their leadership)? It would have far cheaper, less controversial, and less threatening for Iran to build some oil refineries instead of nuclear weapons. If Iran was an open society they would be strategically located to become a powerhouse in the Middle East. They have a great deal of oil, an educated population, a young population, and sit on the most important sea lane in the world. The Shah made a large leap forward in the years that he was in power, why have they gone backwards in so many ways since the Ayatollahs took over?

The leadership of Iran is all about hatred of the west, non-muslims, and losing their power.

The Imams and the Ayatollahs of Iran are the equivalents of Pat Robertson's and the religious right of The U.S. The difference is that their dialogue is overt and publicized.

You Own a weapon and i don't, who's the threat?

Does my purchasing a weapon automatically classify me as a threat?

What have you done to me that makes you fear retribution?

Could it be that me denouncing you has to do with the fact that you want to keep me unarmed?