Nice evasion. When you've run out of intelligent thought, bring up Nazis.

Returning to the topic, if we could:

Iran deliberately and willfully murdered merchant sailors from a variety of nations.

FYI - attacking a ship flying the flag of another nation is an act of war.

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Evasion is right on your side, my dear. Instead of reading, comprehending and then reacting to the message and content of my post, you do the neo-con side step. Bombing of merchant ships! - This in the light of US genocide in Iraq! This in the light of US massacres in Afghanistan!

Your reply, depicts exactly the self-bestowed ignorance of the general american public. A public, that similar to Germany in 1933, wants to be ruled by fascistic liars and bigots.

"Americans cannot escape the responsibility for what is done in our name around the world. In a democracy, even one as corrupted as ours, ultimate authority rests with the people. We empower the government with our votes, finance it with our taxes, bolster it with our silent acquiescence. If we are passive in the face of America's official actions overseas, we in effect endorse them."
Mark Hertzgaard

QUOTE=TheLastBoyScout;1091083]Even bringing up WWIII is irresponsible fear mongering. Pakistan has nukes, North Korea has nukes, Russia has nukes, China has nukes.

But once Iran goes nuclear, we are at the doorstep of WWIII...

They continue to employ the same line of logic.. The last day of their terms in office will not come soon enough.[/quote]


Yea, but the Iranians aren't smart enough not to shoot them at someone.

White Rabbit - this is what I was referring to with regard to attention spans. The poster here is unable to focus on Iran, and instead has wandered off into a bleat about Iraq - and more babble about Nazis.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I disagree. For one, I think you and others who assume "obliteration" in response may be overestimating the response. I don't assume that there would be an obliteration of Iran in response to a terrorist-delivered nuclear or radioactive attack on the U.S., and I also doubt that the response would be immediate.

In the wake of such an attack, I would first expect hemming and hawing over the responsibility. If the material can be traced to its source, that will take time. Then, assuming a link to Iran, there will be denials of culpability and impassioned defenses of Iran, likely including absence of proof that Iran deliberatively provided the material to terrorists and/or that it intended such an attack. I would also expect part of the defense to include a line of reasoning that the attack was provoked by the United States.

Finally, while there would certainly be a thirst for blood among many Americans, many simply will not want to kill millions of innocent people in retaliation. I would not take a catastrophic response as a given at all, and if the Iranian leadership understands Americans as well as I do, they won't either.

__________________

Dear Public, this is what I mean with hypocritical neo-cons not being able to face the mirror of their own actions.

The topic is an insane US President trying to convince the world, (MattLarson is already convinced) that IRAN is an evil nation, that will kill, kill, kill.

My previous posts were the attempt to give light to realities not easily accessible to a neocon mindset. Realities that bite and shy away hypocrisy and bigotry.

So my post are right within the context of W threatening WWIII in the light of Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

But out neo-con moderator, has nothing better to do, maybe not even the intellectual capacity, than to belittle sound opinions of other members, that he doesn´t agree with.

The complexity of the world evades the perception of the neo-con. It´s the ALAMO! It is us against them.

"If the U.S. really believes that supporting terrorists makes you as guilty as the terrorists themselves, then it would have to put on trial most of its military and political leadership over the last handful of administrations, and more."
Peter McClaren

Wow, a post without Nazi references. I'm impressed.

Now that we've returned to modern times, can you concede that the regime in Iran is quite brutal? Or will you refuse to recognize the truth? Or perhaps again fail to consider the topic and wander off to rant about "neocons" and the like?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

In comparison to the US Iran is tame.

Remember the thread is about Bush threatening with WWW III! - And he is a neocon! - Therefore I have every right to rant about neocons.

Your problem is you do not like to be confronted with valid opposition. You fail to stand up and deliver.

Why so, I do not know. But it must be this "Neo-con"-Reflex called "Rationalisation".

You are not convincing, in your attempt to be didactic and you are not even convincingly passive-aggressive.

With a little bit more reading and travelling the world, you would become a presentable right-wing mainstream democrat.

"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
William Blum

*bonks matt larson on the head*

imma try one more time, and then imma turn to other pursuits matey.

speaking about "wandering off", were you tryin' to suggest that the reason iran should not have a nuclear weapon, is due to their treatment of gays?

*salutes*

*agrees*

well said matey!

Your Nazi comparisons hardly qualify as "valid opposition".

If you read the material involved, Bush (who I support far less than you apparently think) is not "threatening with WWW III" but rather suggesting that Iran in possession of nuclear weapons might initiate WW III.

Yawn. You don't know anything about me, and I guarantee that you could not correctly identify my position on the vast majority of topics.

You proceed from error, and produce more error as a result.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

My, what "big eyes" you have, Matt...but your [fill in the nauseous sarcastic attempt to sound like one of the great Sages here]



/chuckle

Now there is an argument for ya.

__________________

If you drop the whole pirate schtick, there's a much better chance that you'll be taken seriously.

Failing that, perhaps you'd best turn to other pursuits....

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Yeah, like the pursuit of a real arrrgggggggument!

(Sorry, could not resist)

__________________

Again, you are unconvincing!

The leaders of the empire, the imperial mafia - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al. ... are as fanatic and as fundamentalist as Osama bin Laden."
William Blum