Iran's War Of Egos...
 

It is surprising how again and again people's egos get in the way of good judgment. Saddam refused to back down pretending he had weapons of mass destruction. For his ego the people of Iraq are paying dearly, their country now in chaos...

George W. Bush refused to back down against Saddam and refused to listen to the UN inspectors that they couldn't find Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. For his ego the people of the United States are paying dearly, stuck in a war with no good end in sight. Thousand of American casualties, costing billions of dollars sending the country into deficit with little money to rebuild the Katrina devastated Gulf Coast and with Osama bin Laden still operating. On top of all that there is the matter of Iran that like it or not the U.S. will have to deal with militarily...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refuses to back down against the United States, the European Union and most of the United Nations. For his ego the people of Iran will pay dearly. President Ahmadinejad wants to build a nuclear weapon. He claims it is Iran's right to have nuclear weapons. He also has said he wants to wipe Israel off of the map. Once you start talking about wiping another country off the map, in the eyes of the world you lose that right to have nuclear capabilities. Sorry Mr. Ahmadinejad it isn't going to happen. The reason it isn't going to happen is once you have nuclear weapons, most people believe Iran would use them on Israel. Doing so would set off a chain reaction that would not only kill millions in Israel and Iran but several countries in the Middle East. That would also damage the flow of oil to countries worldwide including China; that would hurt China's growing economy. China will not let Mr. Ahmadinejad's ego hurt their economy. Iran has missiles that can reach Europe and nobody doubts they wouldn't nuke Europe too. The E.U. isn't going to let one mad man start another world war...

Mr. Ahmadinejad may think the U.S. doesn't have the stomach for another war and therefore would never attack Iran. There are some in the United States that would be against war no matter what the reason. That said President Bush doesn’t really care what the American people think. He has said he doesn't follow the polls. It is probably another one of his lies, he probably cares but he doesn't make his decisions based on polls. But he does usually go to war just before an election and guess what? There is a congressional election coming up this November. Mr. Ahmadinejad may want to check his ego and his nuclear ambitions because there are plenty of troops in Iraq that could easily move into Iran and overthrow his government in a moments notice. The one thing about President Bush is he doesn't bluff. Bush isn't going to back down against Ahmadinejad. Bush has a pretty big ego. If Ahmadinejad has as big an ego as Bush has my guess is next fall he will be sharing a cell with Saddam. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, there will be a nuclear war, Ahmadinejad has said he wants to wipe Israel off of the map and I believe him. That means the only option is to take him out before Iran gets nuclear weapons. It also is a way for the U.S. to get out of Iraq. You know Bush is thinking: bring it on...

My god it must be easy to be a liberal these days, just recycle the same old tired talking points from 3 years ago and run with it. Funny how you leave out the Israel option in this, they have a dog in this fight too. They'll get blamed for whatever happens anyway so I could see them sending a couple jets over there to bomb Ahmadinejad toward his glory as the 12th iman.

I don't expect a retort from you though since your modus operandi seems to be post worn out liberal talking points and then never back them up or clarify them. Guess it would suck for you to think on your own.

For the benefit of everyone else who may want to discuss this topic, are there any specific points you disagree with, Hegemonic? I obviously don't agree with most of Repo's opinions but in this case I think he's making predictions and giving his analsys, not necessarily opining on these events (that would be pointless anyway, since none of this has happened yet).

except for the parts full of his unfounded speculation and opinion.


Except freeing 25 million people from tyranny, other than that insignificant bit it has done no good at all.

$17 billion per state = LITTLE MONEY!

Nope, no opining there.

Yes, he's so wily we went to war in 2001...3 years before an election and in 2003 1 year before an election. To Mr. Knife apparently anytime within a presidential term of office is cryptically "just before an election" so the president shouldn't do anything that might protect the country, lest he be accused of starting wars to get elected years in the future.

No opining there again. Considering Bush's pretty well known perchant for self-depricating humor I'd say if anything he has self-esteem issues, not ego issues.

To call this screed "non biased" or non opinionated is a crock o shit.

It seems Russia will sell Mr. Ahmadinejad Sunburn Missile Yakhonts ..etc
so if they get these nuclear weapons, if all hell doesn't break lose there first there could be some sort of cold war type of nuclear stand off..not the inevitable immediate dustruction of Israel
he might want them off the map but i doubt he will risk having his own country blown off the map in the process

Considering he's a firm 12th Iman believer I don't think we should assume anything with him.

Read into Repo's words what you will and have your say. For myself I got bored with Repo a long time ago, he's such an easy target.

still drinking the kool-aid, huh? you know deep down inside your boy Bush is a fucking disaster, but that is one reality check you just can't cash. we have incompetent, foolish, and duplicitous government - the leadership of whom are largely under criminal investigation and/or indictment at the moment. five years of Bush and GOP control is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. must be getting a little slow over on your blog, huh, as more and more people swim away from the ship. :to3:

yawn. another boring, ignorant liberal. Come back when you can back up your regurgitated talking points with anything resembling facts.

Funny that after five years of 'train wreck' and 'disaster' the U.S. is free of terrorist attacks with a healthy economy, low unemployment and is such a great place that millions of foreigners become criminals to live here.


Could the liberals really think this country is in such terrible shape or do they simply have their heads so far up their asses they see nothing but shit?

No, they want it to be in horrible shape. You have to remember the Democrats and liberals pull their supporters from the victim class of society, therefore they desperately need the economy to be bad so they can woo the poor, downtroden voters, since they have no appealing platform that's all they can run on.

as soon as you all come out of your partisan fantasy lands, maybe you will realize that there is no difference in political parties anymore. most are corrupt and work for the corporations. it sure would be nice to work less than 100 days and vote myself a raise every year.

back to the topic...

just like iraq this is a bi partisan effort


The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran

but then again we need war to keep the economy running our way of life secure and to distract us from the real terrorists (the politicians)

Yep, they don't possess them currently so OBVIOUSLY the only option is to wait until they actually have them and possibly nuke Israel, as they have stated is their goal in life. Why can't us damn imperialist Americans just learn to trust homicidal radical islamic leaders!!!?!?!!? :RE:

What Iraq are you referring to?

The bi-party gave up on Iraq as soon as the going got tough.

I expect the same thing with Iran.

Show me where they stated that their goal is to nuke Israel or were you just spinning.

BTW who were the original terrorists? There were no terrorists before the Allies took over from the Ottomans. Everything was fine(compared to today) in the middle east before the Brits decided to carve it up after WW1, since then the CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad ect has made it the place it is today. How about we carve up the U.S. and give the indians a nation. We can throw in your house too. Make you move out and put up a wall so you cant get back in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...601413,00.html



http://www.opendemocracy.net/democra...srael_2974.jsp



Try searching "mideast history" you clueless idiot. It's been one of the most violent regions on earth for centuries. Hell even a few stories from the old testiment should give you a clue.

If we were going to do in Iran what we did in Iraq then we would start out by sanctioning Iran with a ten-year-long embargo. Saddam was too stubborn to obey the rules the international community laid down for him, but Iran might be different. It would be best to get the UN, or some other multinational coalition, involved here before cosidering military action.

War is not the answer, it's the question. 'Not yet' is the answer.

Well you've sold me! That certainly justifies blowing up niteclubs full of innocent children!

Maybe if the Palestinians, who have never actually had a nation called Palestine and are actually mostly of Jordanian descent, had agreed to the numerous offers to have their own country they wouldn't be in the pickle they are today, with their terrorist government broke because they aren't getting undeserved handouts anymore.

here's another fun sidebar on the Iran "crisis" for alspan (or is it hegebed?):

rather neatly illustrates how the Bush administration deals with national security issues, no?

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1002426164

Unsubstantiated. "Sources" and "officials"...oh and from RawStory too! a bastion of objectivity!

as confirmed by MSNBC - tough to swallow, eh bunkie?

Confirmed how? By citing unnamed sources? Or as reported by David Shuster who started off this "report" with the total lie of "for the first time since Bush administration official’s revealed her undercover identity and ruined her career”. No Bush admin official has been charged with revealing her identity. Tough to swallow, eh bunkie?

i dont see where they said they would Nook Israel. try searching a little harder you drama troll.

I think albed should be wiped off Napterites but Im not gonna do it :) lol

Ignorance of reality like this led to things like the Holocaust.

we are headed down the same road as the germans were in the 30's

PATRIOT act? surveilence, phone tapping, held without charges or a trial?
constant war? military industrial complex?

reichstag = 9/11
SS = HS

ever hear of Paperclip?

How about Prescot Bush (Dubyas grandpa) funding the Nazis?

they were warned not to attack poland but they did it anyway

just like we are being warned by russia and china not to attack iran.



but people like you can say oh we had no idea this was happening just like the germans had no idea about the jews

you like war so much maybe you should sign up :)

Haha, you're fucking nuts. It's like you save up all these moronic, disproven liberal memes and they EXPLODE onscreen all at once, lol.

When exactly did I say I liked war anyway?

Floydian can act pretty normal for a while but eventually the real frybrained crackpot comes out.

yeah, fucking liberals:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6ec15f3c-d9...0779e2340.html

Wow, did that article actually lump libertarians (or as they are more commonly known, LOLbertarians) in with conservatives? Sure they share a few of the same ideals, but LOLbertarians share quite a few with liberals as well. In fact libertarianism is classic liberalism.

An apt ovservation, but you make it sould like classic liberalism is a bad thing.

It's not conservatism, and neither is libertarianism. That was my point.

The Logical Song
 

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

spin to get ya whipped up and get ya goose steppin
:hhit:

Do you have any sources that aren't biased and discredited?

Please explain why they are "discredited"? and by whom.
"biased"without doubt,not like Fox news then?
I watch Fox sometimes when I get in in the morning after work.It's so right wing it's like a comedy show.
I find to hard to believe so many Americans go along with some of their opinions.
Then again,each to their own.

When they show a clear bias they are in fact discrediting themselves as a valid news source.

And who even mentioned Fox News? You apparently watch it more than I do.

Don't fret your self mate.
I was just saying Fox as an example of how it works both ways.If I read you right,you don't think Fox is a credible news source.Point me to one you think is.
The BBC here in Britain is not too bad.
A bit too PC for my liking.Our newspapers are a load of shit.
I get most of my news from the wife anyway.It gives her something to talk about,while I listen.

Is the New York Times not good enough for ya? are you the discreditor?

face the fact that you are using conventional wisdom and parroting right wing propaganda.

WTF are you talking about floydian? None of your links are to the NYT.


That's why I drop out of arguments with you; not only do you use lies to back up your points but you can't even maintain a rational connection to what's already been posted, even when it's your posts.

Do you mean like our unresolvable involvement in Iraq?

Not what I meant but if the Dems get in control it will quickly look like the Holocaust as we pull out before the job is done and leave the Shiites to fight for their lives alone against bloodthirsty Sunnis and jihadists.

That's all the excuse Iran will need to go in and take over.

You dont argue with me you just call me names, but ive gotten used to you though. Im saddened that you diddnt call me anything in this last post.

but i warn ya, once you read the crazy stuff i post, your path to the dark side will have begun.

Anyway... in the post where i left a link to informationclearinghouse, they linked the transcript from the NYT. Then they explain how MEMRI changed the translation.

Ok then... now that you see, this here is a link to the same website you used in an earlier post that quoted Irans prez as saying "Israel should be wiped off the map".

Let's quote from your beloved "debunking"

but

Both informationcleearinghouse and the NYT are jokes, the fact that you hold them up as paragons of truth is a shining example of why you're a moron.

lets get back to how you said that iran wanted to nuke israel, that was a drama troll lie, then your equally blind tag team buddy posted a link stating that israel should be wiped off of the map, which is another lie.

there we go, cant attack the link now so we'll attack the linker by calling me a liar, moron, idiot ect...

you assclownhat

i obviously cant have a debate with either of you

You moron, even Al-Jeezera, no friend to either the US or Israel said Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

Edit: I think it's pretty indictive of your insanity that you're trying so hard to defend a lunatic like Iran's president.

He never said he wanted to nuke Israel, he is smarter then that, he would never say that.

He has said

"The peaceful Iranian nuclear technology will not pose a threat to any party because we want peace and stability and we will not cause injustice to anyone and at the same time we will not submit to injustice" April 13, 2006

On January 11, 2006, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran will have peaceful nuclear technology very soon. He also emphasized that making the nuclear bomb is not the policy of his government. In his words : "We would like to send the message to those who claim Iran is searching for nuclear weapons that there is no such policy and this [policy] is illegal and against our religion."

Take it for what ever it is worth, I have a hard time trusting him personally

He also said

In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech opposing Zionism that contained antagonistic statements about the State of Israel. He agreed with a statement he attributed to Khomeini that the "occupying regime" must be wiped off the map or eliminated. He also referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [in] the Islamic world."

In December 2005 Ahmadinejad also made several controversial statements regarding the Holocaust and the State of Israel, at one point referring to the Holocaust as a "myth" and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial. He said that although he does not know whether or not nor to what extent the Holocaust occurred, if it had in fact occurred, European countries should make amends to the Jewish people by giving them land to establish a state in Europe (Germany, Austria or other countries), the United States, Canada or Alaska instead of making "the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime." These statements were also condemned by many world leader.


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

LOL im not defending Irans pres, Im just pointing out what a dumfuck parrot spin machine you are. Maybe if you took your head out of your ass tommy boy you could see.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong go back to spin school


wrong again, you cant even read your own link right

the quote was (taken from your own link)

hes quoting kohmeni, the pres never stated it, but its still not correct because he diddnt use he term "israel"

btw are you giving al jazeera credibility over the NYT? This could get fun. :)


Sinner got the quote correct.

Well considering Ahmadinejad is nothing but a puppet of the mullahs it really doesn't matter if he said it or they did, he repeated it without repudiation, leading to the simple conclusion that he believes in it as well. It's not that hard to figure out, maybe if you stopped fawning over him you would see it as well.

Also, I'd give a street urchin credibility over the NYT, hell my border collie has more credibility than they do. But in this case, considering it concerns a translation of arabic speech, I'll be more apt to believe the side that's is, you know, arabic.

Go on defending Ahmadinejad, it's interesting to see the disintegration of a liberal mind right before my own eyes. Why don't you throw in spirited defense of Zarqawi since we're all here?

Gotta wonder what the acidhead thinks Iran will use to wipe Israel off the map?


Handi-wipes maybe?

Hegemonic

Malvachat asked you a question that you never answered, i'd like the answer aswell, According to you, what sources are reliable?

I like my news sources to report the news, not try to make it.

I'd have no problem with certain news outlets if the just admitted their bias, the New York Times admitted they're liberally biased and that's fine, I don't respect them as a news source but at least they get my respect for admitting it so I know they can be properly ignored.

Care to tell what sources do you trust? CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, Blogs...? A direct answer would be nice :ND:

Well Mizz, I don't trust any source really, but that might just be that I see journalists as only eager to get the next pulitzer or book deal instead of actually reporting the news, they gotta break that story or they're quietly shuffled off to report on a town meeting in Peoria and some hot new desk jockey is given their beat. Everyone has a bias, you really just have to learn to see through them to get to the actual story.

edited by jackspratts - name removed

Well...

Weter your name is CZAR or span or your latest one, you still are the same person, why bother with changing names anyway? And BTW, since you can't come up with an answer, you had to resort to, you know what, that's pretty lame of you.

the answer is actually "i trust whichever news source supports my particular ideological bent" but you know, he can't actually come out and say it. same shit, different nic.

I gave you an answer, several times in fact. Sorry I didn't give you one which would allow you to continue with your predetermined opinion. I know you were probably hoping I would say something like "I LEIK FAUX NEWZ!" so you could continue along the path I could see you heading down, sorry sweettits, ain't gonna happen.

Don't worry too much about.
It's what I have come to expect.
Entrenched views,won't even consider another view point.
It's not hard to make your mind up about something,if you have all ready made your mind up.
I try to be fair to everybody.
Anybody spot the credible answer?

I consider other viewpoints all the time. It's just that when they're not factual it kinda irks me.

A lot of people around here don't even adopt a viewpoint they just parrot whatever they find appealing. Ask them a question that requires some original thinking and they just about fall off their perch.

i get it now, your mad at yourself, i understand why too. thats ok tho, i know you still have some good in you. let it out for the world to see sunshine. :)

easy polly, ya dont wana dirty your cage again
hehe

wow two self reflections in a row