Where in the hell did I say SH never has WMD’s? My position is there were no WMD’s in Iraq when the current administration said there was as a pretext for invading Iraq.
August 22, 1995: High Level Defector Secretly Reveals Iraq’s WMD Program Has Ended

Do yourself a favor and read the whole timeline(at the link above), of the disinformation that the Bush admin tossed out to gullible people such as yourself.

Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Iran’s intent is to develop nuclear powered electric generating plants. They want to enrich their own uranium so they are not hostage to superpower whims. If China asks the US to stop enrichment on the condition they will supply it for us, do you think that would be a good idea for us to accept that offer?

Keep digging…you’ll figure it out eventually.

It seems I’ll have to, since you are clearly terrified of simply telling me. Not sure what your hangup is here. If you are not a Catholic, stomp your foot once. If you are, stomp your foot twice.

Is that easy enough for you?

You said you were Catholic
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM

LOL. Strike six! Even T-ball doesn’t seem to help.

I’ll broadcast the pitch to help a bit…

Mother was Catholic. Father was Southern Baptist. Keep digging…you’ll figure it out eventually.

Keep trying on the religion angle though. You only have a few hundred thousand sects to work your way through.

You said you were Catholic, though you may have been lying. And your left-wing view point comes through lond and clear.

I no more believe in a division in every country then I believe you are not an isolationist.

You don’t know what the word “isolationist” means. To you, it’s like “fascist” or “Nazi” – just another substitute for a four letter word, a way of saying “I don’t like you”.

But I’m interested to hear that you don’t believe in a division in every country. Only in the Middle Eastern ones it seems.

Trying to stop Iran without force is like trying to stop a bear from attacking you by showing it your Sierra Club card.

You sure are a big fan of force. Where does the Pope stand on that?

davem on July 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Yep!

Trying to stop Iran without force is like trying to stop a bear from attacking you by showing it your Sierra Club card.

Chimpy on July 8, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Yes, yes, yes. Wounded Knee was a terrible black eye also.

Your vision of the world is interesting. In your world everyone is a rational actor. Sounds like a wonderful place to live but Iran has only one intent, acquire the bomb. All of her stated ‘goals’, power, technology etc have been offered to her on a silver platter by the west. She would have all the electricity she claims she needs, all the technological know-how to put her in the 21st Century, and the ability to operate her economy to benefit her people. She chose bombs over all that. There is no ‘rational’ explanation for her to continue. It costs her more, and gains her less, then to accept the world’s offer.

So be it. Her choice, now she has to live(or die) with it.

Chimpy on July 8, 2008 at 9:28 AM

First the left says that were no WMD and now they say there were WMD, which is it?

Mind you, we’re doing our best at present to invite the world here.

flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:38 AM

They have already been here, 9-11.

Just what I expected.

progressoverpeace on July 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM

The first part of your reply reminds me of Dr Strangelove. The second part doesn’t take into consideration that the majority of the comments in this thread or any thread on HA about Iran, basically say “death to Iran”. Are you saying if Iran engineered a coup in the US, that US citizens would passively except that with no complaints?

Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 11:06 PM

So if Iran engineered a coup in the US that wouldn’t be meddling?

Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Cute, but stupid.

saus on July 8, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Unfortunately most of what you say is your opinion and doesn’t stand up to this.>>
In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue

Washington ’snubbed Iran offer

Obama Feb 29, 2008

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material
that is not the fissile material I knew.

Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Madam secretary. Honorable delegates. Ladies and gentlemen. For many years now, I’ve lived among you as a visitor. I’ve seen the beauty of your many cultures. I’ve felt great joy in your magnificent accomplishments. And I have also seen the folly of your wars. As of today, I’m not a visitor anymore, because the Earth is my home too. We can’t live in fear, and I can’t stand by and watch as we stumble into madness of possible nuclear destruction. And so I’ve come to a decision. I’m going to do what our governments have been unwilling or unable to do. Effective immediately, I’m going to rid our planet of all nuclear weapons.

Superman, 1987

I was deployed in a war we were not allowed to win.

Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM

I was deployed in a war that could not have been won at an exceptable cost and should never have been entered into in the first place.

Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities.
- Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954

Norman Podhoretz, who believes that American intervention in the Vietnam War was “an attempt born of noble ideals and impulses,” has concluded that “the only way the United States could have avoided defeat in Vietnam was by staying out of the war altogether.” His judgment, in retrospect, appears to be as reasonable as any. The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater, and the US decision to fight there in the 1960s was driven by a doctrine of containing communism that in the 1950s was witlessly militarized and indiscriminately extended to all of Asia. Bernard Brodie observed in the early 1970s that “it is now clear what we mean by calling the United States intervention in Vietnam a failure. . . . We mean that at least as early as the beginning of 1968 even the most favorable outcome . . . could not remotely be worth the price we would have paid for it.” The United States could not have prevented the forcible reunification of Vietnam under communist auspices at a morally, materially, and strategically acceptable price.
- US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97

Also read H.R. McMaster’s “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.”

And it’s pretty obvious that anything short of a US Army division in every country on Earth counts as “isolationism” in your eyes.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Strike four! That’s ok, I’ll spot you some extra swings. T-ball if you need it.

I’d heard that there were some pretty far left priests working in the catholic Church and you seem to have been indoctrinated by one.

flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:57 AM

Strike five! T-ball it is then.

Sorry flense. I no more believe in a division in every country then I believe you are not an isolationist. I just don’t believe in leaving my friend to the wolves.

Keep trying on the religion angle though. You only have a few hundred thousand sects to work your way through.

Isolationism by any other name is still isolationism.

And Marxist-Catholicism is still Marxist-Catholicism.

Your ‘walking away’ statement is what it is. Leave people to the wolves. Isolationism by any other name is still isolationism.

It’s not for us to save the world, my left-wing globalist friend. If you feel like trying that task go ahead and let me know how it works out.

And it’s pretty obvious that anything short of a US Army division in every country on Earth counts as “isolationism” in your eyes. The truth is that there is a middle ground somewhere between isolationism and your fantasy of America bestriding the world like a colosuss dispensing your idea of justice to all the worlds people at the point of a gun.

I’d heard that there were some pretty far left priests working in the catholic Church and you seem to have been indoctrinated by one.

flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:52 AM

Sorry flense, strike three. My ears aren’t even red yet.

Your ‘walking away’ statement is what it is. Leave people to the wolves. Isolationism by any other name is still isolationism.

Seems an odd choice to pick as President for an isolationist.

Have I pointed out recently that you are a moron? There is a world of difference between putting Americas interests ahead of those of other countries, and being an isolationist. Too bad those Catholic priests never taught it to you. You were steeped in left-wing mumbo-jumbo from an early age.

You are confusing AQ/Sunni/Wahhabism stateless groups with the Shiite country of Iran

Chimpy, All those groups, are islamic fundamentalist groups. All of them want to see an Islamic caliphate, all of them ascribe to strict adherence to fundamentalist religious Islam, all wish to see political religious Islam as the only form of govt, all of them obtain support from the State of Iran. There are senior AQ members protected in Iran by Iran’s theocracy, the US asked for them & was denied.

Hamas is sunni & an Islamic Fundametalist group.
Al Qaeda is sunni & an Islamic Fundamentalist group.
Hezbollah is shiite and an Islamic Fundamentalist group.
Iran is Shiite and an Islamic Fundamentalist country.
The Taliban were also an Islamic fundamentalist government before being toppled.

Chimpy, Islamic Fundamentalist is the 1st line in the encyclopedia in reference to these groups, and that country Iran – I don’t want to seem rude or make it seem like I am trying to attack you, but you should not throw terms around like wahabiism because you don’t know what the heck you are talking about, which is fine, because these are complex subjects and indeed confusing.

Iran had the world’s only Islamic revolution to become the first Islamic fundamentalist nation state. Iran is Shiite, yet supports Hamas which is sunni in every way, Just as Al Qaeda is sunni, yet garners support from shiite Hezbollah which was created by Iran as a proxy. They are all tied to Iran in their philosphy. The co-founder of Al Qaeda Zawahiri was an Islamic fundamentalist cleric from the Islamic Jihad / Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist wahabi from Saudi Arabia, ’so what’ is the point – They share 100% common cause. One is Wahhabi, one is not. The common denominator is Islamic Fundamentalism.

Iran’s population chants death to America
Hezbollah’s supporters chant death to America
Hamas supporters chant death to America
Al Qaeda supporters chant death to America.
They all ascribe to the exact same Islamic philosophy, it is Islamic fundamentalism, this is not opinion sadly.

They all support, ascribe to the use of mass murder / violence as a political tool, they all actively support martyrdom & suicide attacks, they all support the use of civilians for murder & shielding themselves. Iran boasts it has 50,000 civilian suicide bombers ready including women. They all want to topple the West. They all seek the destruction of Israel & the destruction of America.

Iran refers to Israel as the little Satan, America as the Big Satan. Non of this is unfortunately my opinion, I wish it were.

flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Just reminding you of your own pick. Seems an odd choice to pick as President for an isolationist.

Do you think DeMint would ‘walk away’? I sure don’t believe he would.

I’ve noticed that thinking is not your strong suit. I believe that he’d put America ahead of the rest of the world, which is what an American politician is supposed to do.

You can act out your peculiar fantasies on your own dime.

Do think that they would leave us alone if we walked away.

Read my comments on this page. I’m not willing for America to become what you people want it to be – a global dictatorship. If some people in the world want to behave badly, that is their right. If they want to follow us here, that is their problem.

Mind you, we’re doing our best at present to invite the world here.

flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:35 AM

But flense, you stated before you would like to see DeMint elected as the President. Do you think DeMint would ‘walk away’? I sure don’t believe he would. Now Paul might. No, Paul would.

Glad I don’t live in your America flense. Glad, also, I never will.

I’m glad also, Limerick. Now, if there was only some way to get you physically out of the country …

I don’t know what country you are loyal to, but it sure as hell is not this one.

At that point I’d favor America doing what is in it’s best interests and walking away.

flenser on July 8, 2008 at 12:04 AM

Quick! Run to your homes! Lock your doors! Pull the blinds! Pay no attention to the screams!

Glad I don’t live in your America flense. Glad, also, I never will.