Foot in Mouth Disease

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?

 

<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.

 

<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.

 

<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

 

<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.