Subject: you're wrong on Iran
Hi Bart - first time writer.
The problem with what you state is that it sounds
parallel to the Bush Doctrine.
If you think it sounded like Bush, you read something
that I didn't write.
I'll plead quilty to my words, not your interpretation
This isn't about invading a helpless country so
my oil buddies can steal their oil.
Why do people think insulting me makes the Middle
East any safer?
Pre-emptive war and/or invasion based on WMDs.
Who said anything about an invasion?
You say you disagree with me, but you apparently
have no idea what my position is.
You're right that we can't wish it away - close
our eyes and hope for the best.
But why does it have to be either/or? Total
aggression or total indifference?
A naval blockade is not "total agression."
Hell, it's not even violent unless some suicidal
It's containment, something Clinton did
Israel only exists because of protection money
and actual protection by the United States.
So that's what this is about?
You've been driven crazy by that dreaded Middle
I wish I could argue this point with someone
by religious insanity.
They are sitting there with completely illegal
nukes, thumbing their nose at the U.N. and the world.
Okay. That's reality right now.
Obviously, nobody's going to do anything about
that, because nobody has.
How is that related to the topic we're talking
It's pretty easy to spot those who don't see
with a nuked-up Iran - because they have no use
Even if you hate Israel with all you've got (not
saying you do) can't you
understand the concept behind 20-40M dead Iranians
if Israel gets hit?
There's a phrase associated with Israel:
Do you think they're kidding?
But what about all those student protestors and
political strife in Iran right now? That's reality, too.
Are we changing the subject again?
It seems one way to argue with me is to propose
a new subject.
Is that because I'm unshakable on the currect
Isn't there another way to somehow support a movement
that is animated by the desire for freedom,
rather than take aggressive actions that will
harm the people in our attempt to isolate and starve the
"government" (oligarch) in Iran?
I'm not aware of one because I'm busy trying to
stop a nuclear war.
Odd that I don't have any support on this.
We tried that (sanctions) first in Iraq, and that
didn't work, and then
we tried the Bush Doctrine (which we knew was
wrong) and that didn't work either.
Why make the same mistakes twice (not counting
Why keep calling me Bush?
Do you get that nobody is being
I am somewhat disappointed by Obama, too, right
now, but it's too early to judge.
However, I hope and want to believe in one of
his highest stated goals - nuclear disarmament.
Yet you're OK with Iran nuke-threatening Israel?
If he can find a way to achieve that goal, than
he will be a truly great world leader.
Let the Republican pricks go down in history
as greedy scumbags feeding on
the carrion of the middle class as they deny
them healthcare and other "socialist" rights.
But, you're right, for that Obama will still have
to come to work.
I sure wish I could get somebody to address the
real questions in this case.
It seems to me you have to have one of the following positions.
Iran is a threat and we must invade them today. The
Iran will soon be a threat. Shut off oil sales until they comply.
there's a difference between position1 and position 2
Iran would not use a nuke on Israel if they had one.
Iran has no chance of buying/building nukes in the near future
If you know of a fifth option (diplomacy has already failed) please
How can I "debate" people who haven't decided what they support?
Please, if anybody else writes with an opinion, please begin with the
number of the option you support.
...and note there's a difference between 1 and 2 so why call me Bush?
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog