Syria Defends America!
LaserWolf
Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
Syrian security forces repeled an armed terrorist attack against the US Embassy today. The terrorist were armed with automatic weapons, a car bomb and handgernades.Could it be that Syria does not support terrorist and the killing of Americans? If Bush was this wrong on Syria could he be wrong about Iran?
Comments
sure he could be wrong about Iran, but i think it's as foolish to take Ahmadinejad at his word as it would be to do the same for Bush. They're both radical extremists. Of course then if you assume he isn't telling the truth and Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, it of course follows to ask why they can't have 'em if we can? And that I can't really answer...
a shocker to most Americans. Not every country is absolute in its thought.
[O-dub]Only a Sith thinks in absolutes[/O-dub]
I'm starting an internet rumor...I heard that not every American supports Bush
when has Bush been right on anything?
fuck a bush.
excellent moral equivalence. the reason we can have them and they cant, is that we don't cut peoples hands off for stealing or stone 17 year old girls becuase they dare to defend themselves from a rape. We also don't take hostages or support both financially and idiologically regimes that hide behind their children to fire rockets and cut off journalists heads.
I'm sure you will find examples of all these things perpetrated by the Bush administration through further moral equivalence, so dont bother wasting both our time with it.
i'm lebanese
"The United States provided many of the arms used by all the forces in Afghanistan."
whoops!
That's wonderful. It doesn't, however, answer my question.
In the interest of full disclosure, I think your statement is a real gross oversimplification of Iran and the Middle East. That's why I asked.
Again though, you're ducking the overall thrust (pause) of my question, which tried to identify what exposure to Iran has informed your opinion of that country.
More than anything your answers seem to imply "none".
excellent moral equivalence. the reason we can have them and they cant, is that we don't cut peoples hands off for stealing or stone 17 year old girls becuase they dare to defend themselves from a rape.
Sab's right. To place Ahmadinejad and Bush into the same category is some seriously morally bankrupt bullshit.
I have zero patience for crap like this. You think Bush is an abomination? Go involve yourself in the process and work to change the country to your liking. You're an Iranian and think Ahadinejad is a bad guy? Oh sorry, you're shit of luck.
It's wankery like this that leads to a third of Quebec believing that 9-11 was a conspiracy perpetuate by the lizar people.
Sab's right. To place Ahmadinejad and Bush into the same category is some seriously morally bankrupt bullshit.
I have zero patience for crap like this. You think Bush is an abomination? Go involve yourself in the process and work to change the country to your liking. You're an Iranian and think Ahadinejad is a bad guy? Oh sorry, you're shit of luck.
It's wankery like this that leads to a third of Quebec believing that 9-11 was a conspiracy perpetuate by the lizar people.
He did not put both Ahmadinejad and Bush are in the same category. He called them both liars. A true statement.
One difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iran, is only the US has used them against an other nation. And only the US says they are ready & willing to use them again. Only the US has said they want to build nuclear weapons that can be used on the battlefield. This has nothing to do with Bush or Ahmadinehad. It is about world awash in nuclear weapons.
I don't believe either country should be allowed to have them.[/b]
We live in a world where any country can build a nuclear bomb. I mean the science and technology are available to any country with the mean$. George Bush, for political reasons, has chosen one country to talk about. Iran. Don't doubt that there are lots of other countries moving forward with their nuclear programs. I have not done the research (I'm not motown67), but a few good guesses would be Indonesia (with the worlds 5th largest army) Nigeria, Japan, Turkey, North Korea (which most likely has them) Brasil. Not to mention countries like Ukraine that have likely maintained control over some old Soviet nuclear weapons and technologies.
If we think the problem of nuclear proliferation is about one country with one scary leader we are making a huge mistake.
I believe that's placing them both into the category of radical extremist.
Until there are no nuclear weapons, I'd like them to stay in the hands of America and her allies. In that scenario I'm less likely to get nuked than if Iran and North Korea have a couple in their arsenal. That's what this has to do with: who's most likely to nuke my family in Europe, America, and Israel. It's not the US, no matter how trigger-happy you think it is.
Fair enough. I take a longer range more global view.
This is from infoplease.com and seems accurate enough:
Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States
Unacknowledged: Israel
Seeking: North Korea,1 Iran2
Abandoned: South Africa???Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine???When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.
Of the acknowledged one country has been a constant ally, France.
Britain has been an ally since about 1814, almost 200 years.
China and Russia were recently adversaries who specifically made weapons to use on us. There is still lots of tension between China and the US especially as concerns Taiwan and Japan which we are protecting with our nuclear umbrella. Russia is very unstable.
India should be an ally, but accept for under Clinton we have had a rather cold relationship with India.
Pakistan is ruled by a military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected sectarian government. Musharraf holds on to power by torture, arrests, killings and repressing dissent and opposition parties. There is an extreme Islamic insurgency in Pakistan closely aligned with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Pakistan is a close US ally.
Israel has always been a close US ally.
The seeking countries are decidedly not on the side of the US, Europe or Israel, today. Like Russia, China and Pakistan their relationship could swing the other way. If they do achieve nuclear statehood the US and Israel may decide to make peace with them and embrace them in the fold of nations. It certainly worked for Pakistan.
My point is that for the world at large, it does not matter which countries have nuclear bombs. What matters is that countries do have nuclear bombs and the sooner we get rid of them the better. But that is a view that goes beyond my immediate family and the immediate future.
While a nice thought, this is not happening.....it's too late.
Thinking that this is still possible may prevent some folks from thinking past their hopes and understanding that these weapons will never be "extinct".
i said i don't believe what either one of them says, and i said they're both extremists...where did i say living in Iran is comparable to living in the US??? we need a "putting words into mouth" graemlin.
Thats it. I'm calling fatwa on Johnny Paycheck.
You wanna go for double fatwa?
hows about even having the ability to publicly question the election process? go ahead and try that Iran and see how well that works out
That's not Bush's doing.
come through, H! no health care, but the food is good and cheap. and we got strippers down here, too.