1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Foot in Mouth Disease

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by dbermanmd, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    The Dems have done it again, I think. This time John Edwards:

    "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

    I think he has it correct from the Democratic perspective. From my perspective he has it completely backwards. I agree with the mindset that says Ahmedinijadis is the biggest threat, even perhaps al-Qaeda and OBL? Why did Edwards choose Israel as the biggest threat to worlds peace? Does he believe Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?
     
  2. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,193
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 21 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]393842[/snapback]</div>
    Took another sip-o-koolaid this morning eh! Those of us bright enought to understand the complexities of world politics realize that Ahmedinijad's thread to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" has put Israel on guard. They don't want Iran to build a nuke to launch at them. But should Israel take offensive action against Iran w/o UN approval it would disrupt any tenuous stability in the Middle East completely likely initiating WWIII.

    I know it takes more than 2 neurons to comprehend this, but make a diagram or something and it might start making sense to you.

    Now, if you want to start a foot in mouth thread we could do a Bush vs all democrats foot in mouth thread....
     
  3. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    In typical Berman logic, it's a Good Thing to attack a sovereign nation because they may, at some point down the road, pose a threat to you.

    The rest of the world, as Evan pointed out, realizes that such a preemptive strike, without the approval and support of the UN could very well destabilize the entire area. Such a destabilization would likely result in cutting production from the oil fields, driving the rest of the world into a panic over gas. Such a panic would almost certainly result in WWIII.

    What you have to realize is that the middle east, by supplying so much of the world's oil, is the fuse on a giant bomb. Like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, any military action in the area has the possibility, even likelihood, of starting the next world war.
     
  4. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 21 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]393871[/snapback]</div>
    Strawberry baby strawberry.

    Read your first paragraph above bro and if your brain does not go into convulsions you are the one with neuronpecia. According to you, Israel is not allowed to act without UN approval to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon it has threaned multiple times to use against them - this part hurts by itself. Now you realize even with all the false constructs you live by that the UN is a very anti-Israel organization who would not mind one iota if Israel were to be wiped off the map - this is were you should be in status. Do you get this conundrm you have constructed? Do you get that you are now part of this - an enabler of an evil doer - a modern day Hitler. Would you cry one tear if Israel got nuked by Iran? Would you have any regret for not allowing it to defend itself.

    Do you see what a hippocrit Edwards (and you ) are. Mind you, and separately - Edwards the man of "two worlds or classes in the US of A" is building a 28,000 sq ft house complete with gym, home theater, etc, etc. which America does he live in? Obviously yours - that of the limosine liberal - anti-Israel (not anti-Semite, but the fat lady has not started singing yet) - pro - sticking your head in the sand defeatocrat/dhimmocrat.

    What is it that makes you LOVE and IDOLIZE the UN? Is it its anti-America bias, its anti-Israel bias, its anti-Democracy bias, its lack of action in preventing countries from obtaining nuclear weapons, its lack of ability to preven genocide... feel free to choose one or all....

    Tenuous Stability in the Middle East - where are you getting this news flash from??

    Initiating WWIII? JEEEEEZ - how many times have you said that in your lifetime???? 1, 10, 1000? You will have to explain the WWIII part to me. That is unless you let Iran develop nukes - something you obviously are for - and I wonder why (and feel free to read into this all you want because you probably wont be far from where I think you lie)? What is it that drives you to let the UN try for the first time to be successful in preventing a renogade modern day Hitler from getting a nuke? Does not their COMPLETE FAILURE in preventing NoKo (much less Pakistan and India) from going nuke bother you - give you grounds for pause - obviously not. And I wonder why?


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 21 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]393885[/snapback]</div>
    You too? Lets think what is more unstable - a nuclear armed Hitler (Iran) or a non nuclear armed iran? Even you could get this one right if you tried. Stop kerrying [nuancing] you give yourself way too much credit if you cant get this one correct. who could stop all oil transport through the gulf quicker - an nuclear armed iran or a non-nuclear iran??? how high does oil go when they test their first bomb? tell me genius - oil stays below $60 barrel or rockets above $100/barrel.

    So you would not prevent iran from going nuclear why - for oil? Think about that one for a minute or an hour. and tell me, how much oil does iran export currently?

    and that fuse on the bomb - tell me, how long has it been there in your nuanced opinion?

    and again, looking at the UN like a God like figure that has failed at every turn in every important curve in the road - Noko, India, Pakistan, Darfur, Serbia, Rowanda - and you still want to deposit all your faith in it.
     
  5. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 21 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]393888[/snapback]</div>
    Where's the board Hitler? I think we have a loser in this thread...

    Berman, It's very, very obvious to everyone on the board that you're willing to let any country do whatever it wants if it'll benefit Israel. But unfortunately, thats not really all that great. Let me try to explain...

    Say tomorrow Israel sends in some bombers and destroys Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran then uses this as an excuse to attack Israel, wiping it off the face of the planet with conventional armaments. Other nations get involved, the worlds oil supply becomes endangered, bringing in all the "big" countries. The countries align on one side or the other - either with Iran for defending itself, or with Israel for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear devices. Just like with the assassination of archduke Ferdinand, the world would become polarized around this conflict, leading us to WWIII.

    On the other hand, lets say Israel waits and obtains approval from the UN. Now all of the worlds major powers are supporting one side of a conflict, preventing the polarization seen above.

    Please Berman, try to take the blinders off.

    Keep in mind that no one in this thread is saying they are against preventing Iran from going nuclear. Simply that they are against one country acting preemptively independently.
     
  6. Beryl Octet

    Beryl Octet New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    1,293
    0
    0
    Location:
    Abingdon VA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 21 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]393885[/snapback]</div>
    And no one in this country should be delighting in more turmoil in the middle east. The oil shocks of the 1970s were bad enough, and I can only imagine with our delocalized just-in-time 10,000-mile-supply-chain economy, that ditch has a lot of rocks in it, as they say here in Raleigh.
     
  7. Saddam Hussein

    Saddam Hussein New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    11
    0
    0
    I don't like the idea of Israel bombing peaceful nuclear power plants either.
     
  8. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,193
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 21 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]393888[/snapback]</div>
    I'll type slowly so maybe you'll understand...try to hang with me on the facts.
    1)I never said "Israel is not allowed to act w/o UN approval"...you made that up so that you could spin an arguement that seemed to make sense to you. What I said was that should they act w/o UN approval and in a preemptive fashion that it would lead to complete destabilization of the middle east. This is similar to the arguement posed in yesterday's thread where someone claimed the US had the "right" to invade Iraq. Regardless of the "right" to do something that doesn't mean it is the smartest thing to do or the right thing to do and very well may be the absolute worst thing one can do.

    2)I don't believe the UN is "very anti-Israel" While they not be their biggest supporters they at least have a better 'big picture' view of things. And they would care if Israel was attacked b/c of the instability it would create in the region...if for no other reason than b/c the US would be dragged into the fray immediately if Israel were attacked.

    Not even anything to respond to here...when you lack factual arguements you routinely resort to name calling, slandering and making up information (like suggesting I'm anti-Israel and perhaps anti-semite). I just look at that as your complete surrender of the arguement to me when you have to resort to things like that and can't carry on an intellectual arguement based upon facts and data relative to the topic originally posted.

    I don't love and idolize the UN...but the US is still a member. We have agreed to abide by the UN. We are a permanant member of the council. Do you suggest that we ignore the UN. We should just resort to isolationist self-rightous screw the rest of the world attitude? I think the UN can drag their feet on a lot of issues and I think there are times when we must act w/o UN approval. But when it comes to major conflict that could lead to tremendous instability, nuclear conflict, and another WW then yea, I think it's smart to let world diplomacy have a chance....call me crazy.

    ?

    I
    Bzzzzz, never said we should let Iran develop nukes. Never implied it...you're acting as if the only solution is for Israel to unilaterally attack Iran or they will develop nukes. You're also implying that I said only the UN can stop them....I'm not sure exactly what you're implying. But none of his makes sense for anything I ever said.

    Again, you're getting so far away from the original topic that it's difficult to put things back together. In any case..... The US, under the brilliant diplomatic guidance of President Bush, is refusing any negotiations w/ Iran..instead they gave an ultimatum that Iran can't possibly agree to without looking completely defeated...and they won't let that happen any more than we would.

    And, Iran is suffering financially in large part due to the sanctions imposed by the UN...recently Russia refused to send them the next parts they need to develop their centrifuge b/c of failure to make their payments. So, it seems to dumb little me, that the UN is successfully slowing Iran's progress toward developing nuclear capability. Now, if the US would agree to discussions similar to those we had w/ NoKo and agree to monitored development of nuclear power but not the means of developing their own nuclear fuel then Iran could have the benefit of nuclear energy w/o the world-wide risk of them developing a nuclear weapon.

    Isn't that a nice sophisticated solution w/o war?
     
  9. Beryl Octet

    Beryl Octet New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    1,293
    0
    0
    Location:
    Abingdon VA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    [​IMG]

    "Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

    -- Donald Rumsfeld
     
  10. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 21 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]393893[/snapback]</div>
    You are causing great brain pain. Israel prevents iran from getting nukes, iran attacks israel - with what???? sticks or stones :lol:

    The blinders are squarely on you. Again, what is more destabalizing a nuclear or non-nuclear iran - REAL SIMPLE QUESTION?

    Israel obtaining permission from whom - the UN? Where do you live, on what planet? tell me, half of all resolutions passed in the history of the UN are directed against what little country with 6,000,000 jews that is located in the middle east? and if you get that one correct, you are assuming that they will let israel defend itself. tell me the last time the un let israel defend itself. it could not even live up to the resolutions it passed to halt the last war - JEEEEZZZZ -


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Saddam Hussein @ Feb 21 2007, 10:12 AM) [snapback]393898[/snapback]</div>
    Agree - imagine if israel did not take out the iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 - without UN permission. Tell me all you foreign policy winks here with your nuanced positions - was that a good thing or a bad thing? did it cause WWIII like some are positing here? the price of oil did what then?? JEEEEZ.

    lets see - i think a nuclear armed iran is the most stabalizing force for middle east tranquility and peace and the price of oil - who am i?

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 21 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]393903[/snapback]</div>
    Nope.

    Why does iran need nuclear power? if it wants it why cant they buy a unit from GE or westinghouse or some other firm???? riddle that one for me. there is no need for them to develop the technology that could be easily used to make a nuke. if they want nuclear power - buy a nuclear power plant and the supplies from an outside source - no centrifuges, no uranium hexachloride, etc.

    russia as you do know, sold them very sophistacated anti-aircraft missiles - why?

    and you like Bush and his stance with NoKo - cool

    the proper way to handle iran is keeping the price of oil low, complete sanctions, pressuring hezbollah and other iranian supported terror groups, and destruction of their facilities if we think they are getting close.
     
  11. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    doberman's hero=Dr. Goldstein.

    You approve right? You have no credibility with people who want a sane and rational solution.
     
  12. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Feb 21 2007, 10:38 AM) [snapback]393913[/snapback]</div>
    actually no, i do not approve. you are getting stale here - you must try something different - more original - more nuanced - more cortical - less hippocampal
     
  13. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    i find it funny that Berman created a thread labeled "foot in mouth" and then proceeded to stick his own foot in his mouth by not taking into consideration the wider implications of what he was saying.

    You do realize what you're proposing, right? "destruction of their facilities if we think they are getting close." So what you are proposing is that any country that wants to develop something that another country doesn't like should be attacked? Lets follow this through, hypothetically. Any country that is aspiring to develop a nuclear program should be preemptively attacked, right? So Iran gets attacked. Guess what? Your beloved Israel is on that list too. They won't officially confirm or deny anything, but it's widely believed they have 100-200 nuclear weapons mounted on intermediate range ballistic missiles.

    So sure, lets take out anyone in the middle east who we think has or may have in the future nuclear capabilities. Sounds like a great plan to me.
     
  14. dbermanmd

    dbermanmd New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    8,553
    18
    0
    Location:
    manhattan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 21 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]393949[/snapback]</div>
    Pots and kettles -

    Yes I am - i would not allow iran to develop nuclear weapons the same way i would not allow adolf hitler to do that either. No it is not any country - just the ones that threaten the destruction or annihlation of others - or that have a track record of such. would i let noko go nuclear - nope. would i let cuba go nuclear - nope. would i let chavez develop nukes in venezuala - nope.

    israel is on the list. they have nukes for 40 years - have they ever used it? same with france/england/china- somehow i can see a difference between them and iran with its current leadership - the problem is you cant - thats the danger - you see evil and call it good - you enable those who have a strong desire to kill others a greater ability to do so - and you sit back and you nuance - .

    and the current thoughts about the Israeli nuclear arsenal is around 200-400 warheads mounted on surface to surface missiles, cruise missiles (air, ground), submarine based cruise missiles, and aircraft launched platforms too. More than enough to end the world, more than enough to cover any threat, more than enough to respond to any threat - with or without the UN's approval. Heck, they could just light them off at home and end the world I guess. The difference is, they have not, they will not - they cherish life not death - they do not go around threatening to wipe off the map any arab country. maybe you will get the nuanced difference here - although very slight difference - a difference still the same.
     
  15. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    So now we get down to the crux of it. You want to decide who is good and evil and attack all those you view as evil who want to improve their military. You see Iran as evil because they disagree with their neighbor Israel and threaten them. I don't see them as either good or evil (despite your claims) - I see them as a sovereign country that is trying to live based on its own moral and religious code. I choose not to pass judgment on them - I haven't seen them first hand, I haven't been to the country or personally experienced anything there. I chose to listen to the news reports with the full understanding that they are reporting what people want to hear, not necessarily both sides of the story.

    Israeli's current nuclear armaments are unknown. There's a lot of theory and conjecture surrounding them, but it's really unknown. How do we know that they aren't working on building it, but haven't gotten there yet? How do we know that the leadership won't change hands in the near future to someone who is more militant and willing to use them?

    Face the facts, Berman - You feel a strong connection to Israel due to your stated Jewish heritage, and are especially polarized on this issue. Your refusal to even consider the other point of view displays this very clearly. Your clear bias towards Israel is even more pronounced when you state that they "cherish life not death" with the clear implication that Iran does the opposite. Please, you can acknowledge the fact that you are perhaps a little biased without loosing any face - in fact, i would respect you a little more if you could do that.
     
  16. Chuck.

    Chuck. Former Honda Enzyte Driver

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    2,766
    1,510
    0
    Location:
    Lewisville, TX (Dallas area)
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 21 2007, 01:29 PM) [snapback]394069[/snapback]</div>
    The question really should be: "pick a number between 75 and 300"

    Remember when Mordechai Vanunu spilled the beans? Of course, this is the worst-kept military secret in the world.
     
  17. IsrAmeriPrius

    IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    4,333
    7
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 21 2007, 04:19 AM) [snapback]393842[/snapback]</div>
    David H. Berman,

    Do you have any credible source for that claim?

    So far, I have not been able to verify it except on fringe right wing attack blogs.

    P.S. Don't you dare challenge my pro-Israeli credentials.
     
  18. MegansPrius

    MegansPrius GoogleMeister, AKA bongokitty

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    2,437
    27
    0
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
  19. Stev0

    Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    7,201
    1,073
    0
    Location:
    Northampton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2022 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    btw, this is the exact kind of thinking I was parodying in this thread. One Democrat said something questionable? Obviously they ALL think that way!

    Now, shall we trot out all the stupid things George W. Bush said? I would, but unfortunately there' a space limit on how much you can post in a single post.
     
  20. jimmyrose

    jimmyrose Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    646
    3
    0
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Feb 21 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]394131[/snapback]</div>
    Please don't, you'll crash the server. ;)