Where did I ever say that? We are i diplomatic talks with them to stop their weapons program.


So there are 3 options to attempt to stop them from creating a nuclear bomb.

Option 1#

Spend billions of dollars and kill thousands of people, including US solders, not to mention the fact that Iran would be the most equipped country to attack on US soil with independent operatives if we did go to war with them, that we have fought since WW2.

Destroy yet another country and breed more extremist and hope they don't attack back on our own soil with independent actors..

This is the neo cons wet dream come true breeding even more Islamist extremist in the process.. It seems to have worked so well in Iraq for example.. (/sarcasm)


Option 2#

Attempt diplomacy and gain access to their nuclear program giving us an idea of what they have and what they are capable of. This gives us UN inspections and develops more trust over time.

Option #3


Talk really sternly to them and point your finger saying we are going to blow you up if you cross this line.. Oh wait umm I meant this line over here.. wait no this line here..

This gives us no record of what they are capable off which causes more tension and distrust which will eventually lead to them saying Hey guys look at our nuclear bomb!!!

I assume this is your preferred choice of action!!



So tell us Dyno Mo.. do you prefer we start another war to "maybe" stop them.. You can't assume we would win.. or do you just want to be very mean and point your finger saying bad. bad little Mohammad..

Obviously you don't seem to care for the option of diplomacy so you must be in one of the other 2 camps.. Which one is it?

it's not my premise, Joshua G.. Moreover, Joshua G., it's NATO and the entire western world USA is representing here.


Finally, Joshua G., no it's not hypocritical. you seem to think the world can put the nuclear genie back in its bottle, that's not reality.


But thanks Joshue G. for letting us know you have no problems with more nukes in the ME. somehow that's OK, because the opposite would be hypocritical and that's much worse.

:1orglaugh

settle down, i didn't say you said that, thus my yes or no question to you. Again, I simply asked you if you think it's OK allowing Iran to pursue nuclear tech and materials.

this has nothing to do with me and my view, I am inquiring about YOUR view.


do you think that's OK?

Joshua G. thinks I'm the guy who came up with the Iran is too radical for nuclear technology premise.


that's pretty cool he thinks of me that way

nice right!

actually its just the nuclear powers negotiating with iran, not the world, not NATO. your most basic facts, as usual, flimsy.

do i have a problem with nukes in the ME? who cares. unless the USA leads the effort to put the genie back in the bottle, the genie is going to end up in the ME. The question is whether the hypocrities that think only certain people should possess them will change their tune before DC is a fireball.

:2 cents:

If history repeats itself this was the same attitude of the Romans in the 5th century.... " let the barbarians kill each other and then we' walk over them"....

A big mistake, the Barbarians figured it out joined together and in less then30 years destroyed the Roman empire... Just Google Theoderic the Amal...and then go into your bunker.:2 cents:

when has Hezbollah attacked the usa ?

they have not i dont think :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

Ayatollahs with atomic bombs sounds very reasonable ...

Has anyone openly threatened to invade Iran? The Ayatollah is delusional, maybe paranoic, and the Supreme Leader of a theocracy that has divine right to rule.

And you want to give The Ayatollah a nuclear weapons capability?

:helpme

you might want to reread what i wrote because it's clear you didn't read it properly the first time. I'll repeat it here- USA is representing NATO and the entire West.

If you think that's flimsy, here's NATO's view on iran and nuclear proliferation to get you squared away with facts

NATO Review - Nuclear chess: what's Iran's next move?

Next, I did not ask you about your view on Iran and nukes.

Comparing to El Baghdadi the Ayatollah is a democrat :2 cents:

more on the UNited Nations against Iran

UN Sanctions against Iran

As I said many times here... Saddam ( Mubarak, Assad, Khadaffi) are/ were bastards, but OUR bastards... Not me,but Truman said that in the 50ties about some tin pot SA dictator.:thumbsup

you make it sound like hussein was a puppet to USA. he wasn't. Certainly we assisted him in fighting against Iran, etc. decades ago but how's Iran doing since hussein is dead? not any better, so he really didn't keep Iran in check, which was the point of him being a USA bastard.

Hizballah has been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984, as well as the hijacking of TWA 847 in 1985 and the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996.

Same could be said if Obama had listened to his generals and had not withdrew the troops when he did.

We should have tried and imprisoned or executed that POS ... Mindless. When they get done fighting then what?

El Baghdadi is a criminal sociopath. So, get a delusional paranoid to fight him. This is the same mentality that created bin Laden -- how did that turn out?

You seem to have a problem with the English language, because I never said that.

I said I don't understand this one thing.

Try pulling your head out of your ass and respond intelligently?

Here's what Obama said during an interview
?Two things. One is ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion which is an example of unintended consequences ? which is why we should generally aim before we shoot. We?ve got a sixty country coalition. We will slowly push back ISIL out of Iraq. I?m confident that will happen. But what I?m worried about and what we have to stay worried about is even if ISIL is defeated the underlying problem of disaffected Sunnis around the world but particularly in some of these areas, including Libya, including Yemen, where a young man was growing up and has no education, has no prospects for the future, is looking around. And the one way that he can get validation power respect is if he?s a fighter. And this looks like the toughest gang around so let me affiliate with them. And now you?re giving me a religious rationale for doing this. That?s a problem we?re going to have generally and we can?t keep on thinking about counter-terrorism and security as entirely separate from diplomacy, development, education ? all these things that are considered soft but in fact are vital to our national security. And we do not fund those. If you ask the average person, ?How much do we spend on foreign aid?? They will say, ?25 percent of the federal budget.? Well, it?s little over 1 percent. We should be thinking about making investments there that ultimately save us from having to send our young men and women to fight or having folks come here and doing great harm.?

So in the first sentence, he is blaming Bush for Isis

Wrong. ISIS was an outgrowth of the Syrian civil war, which was a problem that was borne out of President Obama?s early policies in the Muslim world. The Obama administration?s double-minded behavior on foreign policy led to the ?Arab Spring? which led to the toppling of many governments and the rise of extremist terrorist organizations. ISIS is Obama?s baby? and yet he blames Bush for them.

Humm yes Britain & the USSR did invade Iran during WW2. Not too many years later the US over through their govt because Iran decided the Brits were giving them a raw deal and nationalized the oil industry. The Brits were actually giving them an incredibly shitty deal, so their being upset about such a shitty deal was justified.

We were then on somewhat friendly terms until the Islamist Revolution whom saw the US installed govt as corrupt which it likely was.

During that period a US naval vessel shot down and killed everyone on board an Iranian civilian passenger jet due to mistaken identity. In among this time line Israel attacked a suspected nuclear site and we have been messing with them every since..

Delusional and paranoid, are you fucking kidding? YOU would have to be delusional to not understand why they are paranoid and want nukes. It's very simple they want nukes so we stop fucking with them. We have helped create the problem in which they see the only way out as having nukes..

What the hell do you think the US would do if a foreign govt killed a president or shot down one of our civilian airliners? We have gone to war for much less.

You are very delusional. ISIS came from the guys which Bush paid off not to be insurgents. They stopped fighting in Iraq and started fighting in Syria. Obama stopped paying them and they came back to Iraq.

Yes Obama also had some bad policies in Iraq with him being so stand offish about it, but he most certainly did not create the problem with ISIS. They were there since Bush years, they just went off to Syria after they started getting paid to stop fighting and got better organized.

all the evil middle east dictators kept the radical muslims in check - it all started when Russia attacked Afghanistan and the US gave weapons to the Mujaheddin (now known as Al Qaeda) to fight a proxy war for them

that turned Afghanistan into the shithole terrorist breeding pit it is now - with all the consequences

so basically it all stems from the cold war

There has been conflict in the area before the cold war, long before the cold war started
List of modern conflicts in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True.

And the really ironic part is that the cold war was almost over by then, although no one knew it at the time.

This is true but you have to go back to the Turks 1915 Armenian holocaust and, before that, all the way back to the Mongols sacking of Baghdad to see barbarity and senseless slaughter on today's levels.

After the way the USSR backed down in Afghanistan, I never understood why we needed to attack the country. Yeah go after Osama, but after we did pool out, Obama wanted to go back, Makes no sense thinking we could do something that the USSR failed at, Twice!

When I heard Obama say in a speech that's what he wanted to do, I couldn't believe how the liberals rallied around him after calling Bush a war monger.

Iran Number 1! Iran Number 1!
 

who cares that you didnt ask what i think. its clear you need training wheels to think. i was just trying to help you. thats what nice people do, help the handicapped.

funny thing. dick cheney thought the same thing in iraq. hey, just conquer saddam, withdraw & let the iraqis sort it out.

then reality set in. they realized oh shit, we can't just leave chaos behind. Look at all the terrorist militias taking over society! Thanks dick cheney.

& thank you vendzilla for showing us you learned nothing from cheney, & want to repeat his mistakes.

hey vendzilla, maybe USA should not have occupied germany. They shoulda listened to you & cheney & let the nazis rebuild.

LOL.

& PS - its pulled out, not pooled out. :)

Fuck the Ayatollah.

He's a liar and by proxy responsible for the deaths of his own Shiites this past week

Iran never hurt anyone -- horseshit.
Iran wants to export their Shia version of the Islamic Republic while ISIS wants to export their Sunni Islamic Caliphate.
Camelshit v. Goatshit.

Welcome to the new Sodom and Gomorrah soon to be a glass parking lot. Let's hope there are not Khamsin winds when it happens.

Proof that you must be really fucking dense, you failed completely to see what I was pointing out.

We pulled out of Afghanistan, please tell us why the fuck we went back? Remember that more troops did under Obama going back to that country than when Bush handled it.

And BTW, Cheney said that way back in 1994, Before he was VP

Maybe you are just pointing out that Obama should have stayed there instead of pulling out of Iraq against his generals advice? Now that it looks like we are going to have to go back?

So what about Iraq, Libya and Syria then?

They, the Iraqi government, Shia dominant BTW, ISIS are Sunni, wanted us to GTFO and we did.

Don't blame the "son" for the "father's" sins ...

ISIS attacked the Iraqi and Syrian governments. Iranians are Shia. It's complicated and their war is 1000+ years old Shiaâ--Sunni relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You did not get my point... Let me try another analogy: " Enemy of my enemy is my friend"...
So, all the dead/retired dictators ought not to have been deposed by the idiots running EU and the USA. They ought to have been supported and at worst tolerated.

But it is not too late, we have more of them today which ought to be our friends:

1) Assad since he is fighting ISIS
2) Sisi since he is fighting ISIS
3) Putin since he is fighting Chechen extremists allied to ISIS
4) Mushariff who would fight ISIS if US supported his return to Pakistan
5) Hesbolah since they are fighting ISIS
6) Iran revolutionary guards since they are fighting ISIS
7) The Kurds since they are fighting ISIS ( not even night vision googles were given to them by USA).

And my favoured the special forces of Chad who are so wonderfully barbarian and who are giving Boko Haram ( now allied to ISIS) run for their money....

But guess what my last analogy " Those who did not learn from history are ought to repeat it"

In other words can you spell Hitler ???
:2 cents:

My favoured new special forces :

Just search Chad military

Never mind facts, you are arguing with Vendzilla..everything is always Obamas fault.. he watched on TV after all so he knows a thing or two..

i got your point, i just disagree with it is all. the [opposing] dictators foreign policy is failed policy, we look to history to see that, each and every one of those arrangements crumbles. It's not even an option now because of the internet and information being available through it.

you highlight exactly why the USA needs to stay the fuck out of the fight against ISis. because it means more of the same- sleeping with fuckwad dictators. those guys are going to have to deal with ISIS regardless of USA. that's happening right now. let them deal with it on their own and we won't have to continue with failed foreign policy of my enemy's enemy is my friend sort of strategy. we don't need to be friends.

http://http://www.channelnewsasia.co...adian-army.jpghttp://http://www.channelnewsasia.co...adian-army.jpg

Fuck it it will not let me post my new favoured special forces ... From Chad, US seal team six eat your heart out :) just search a few pictures.

OK then, lets agree to disagree..... And stay friends. I think you also believe that USA ought to have stayed out of Second World War.... But the 3rd one will be much shorter.:thumbsup

right on!

i do like your perspective, i think parallels between ancient Rome and now are in fact very valid, just like plenty of history needs to be examined and compared to now. we just make different conclusion based on that. you keep it respectful and i respect that.

It is hard to contain war criminals. You are right though -- it is the locals' responsibility but only up to a point.

ISIS is trying to suck the USA into their fight. You have to look at their ulterior motivations -- is ISIS a proxy for someone? Or, is ISIS just Saddam's bogeyman ... Or, the bogyman of the Ayatollah? Of course some allude to greater conspiracies: the MOSSAD, the CIA maybe even the FSB.

All I know for sure is that ISIS and al Qaeda are committing war crimes: attacking civilian populations without any justification and cutting off their captives heads like its 1200 AD. My enemy ISIS is my enemy al Qaeda's enemy -- so who should I make my alliance with? I say Neither.
Same goes for the Ayatollah he, and his government, are part of this madness.

TIL a biker on GFY is more knowledgeable about geo politics and real time intelligence data from Iran / Hezbollah than the entire western world's intelligence apparatus.

The more you know.