Iran Readies For Attack By Bush Neocons And Israel

So if Israel is going to keep its nuclear weapons, you support Iran violating the NPT and building nuclear weapons? This is pro-proliferation and anti-NPT, however you rationalise it.

 

This is exactly the kind of irrational anti-Americanism I'm talking about. Whether or not Israel and America keep their word is completely irrelevant. The point is that Iran is NOT likely to agree (and then actually follow-through) to scrap its nuclear program even if Israel does the same.

Jingoistic? No, just rational. Believe it or not, there is a big middle ground between your irrational hatred of anything American (and sympathy toward any anti-American entity), and blind nationalism. Most people can recognize that while America and Israel may make mistakes from time to time, they're still a lot better citizens of the world than Iran.

 

Nothing irrational nor "anti-American" about my comments Kandahar. If anything, its those who use such patently neo-con jibes who disgrace the founding principles of our nation and the right of its citizens to hold Washington and its client states accountable.

If you wish to keep employing ridiculous slants such as "anti American" (especially against fellow Americans) then do us the favor of admitting your true ideological leanings, for they have for some time now been demonstrably contrary to your profile's claim of liberal.

You wish to make arguments of principle while pointing your finger (along with the bulk of the indoctrinated sheeple) at any boogeyman other than the greatest perveyor, financier and trainer of terrorists, assassinations, overthrows of legitimately elected governments, et al. for more than a half century, namely our own MIC.

To now scream that others dare follow the example we have set through our own selective adherence to or, indeed, outright disregard for international law is as arrogant as it is hypocritical.

 

I hardly call my statement that Iran doesn't keep its word a "neo-con jibe." Hell, it wasn't even meant as a judgment about Israel/America's superiority (you just chose to interpret it that way so you could continue bashing Israel/America). It was simply an OBSERVATION that Iran will NOT agree to disarm even if Israel does! But of course, as soon as you saw the phrase "Iran won't keep its word", you completely ignored the context and rushed to Iran's defense.

If libertarian was an option on the profile, I would've chose that. I make no secret of my ideological leanings, as evidenced by my many posts on this board. But a neocon or a jingoist? Definitely not. I despise patriotism and certainly have no love for the Bush administration.

I see. So you believe that since the United States may have funded terrorism 30 years ago, the American people have forever lost the right to point out the idiocy that is Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Yes, that's VERY rational.

I'm against nuclear proliferation. Period. You cannot say the same, because it's obvious that you favor nuclear weapons as long as they go to rogue nations or terrorists. I don't particularly care whether or not it's "arrogant" for an American to be against nuclear proliferation. I'd rather be arrogant than have the world engulfed in a nuclear war because every tinpot dictator has nuclear arms.

Togo has a new anti-American regime too. Maybe they should get some nuclear weapons, right?

 

If you think Washington's funding of terrorism is some singular act buried in the annals of history then you are truly naive.

And once again, tame it on the regurgitation of terminology popularised by Rove and his neo-con cohorts (i.e. "bashing" Israel/America, etc.) if you wish to be seen as anything other than a willing regurgitative drone.

our Government is not the sum total of our nation, thus to hold Washington accountable for hypocrisy and arrogance and the betrayal of the very "rule of law" it claims to champion is more pro-American than those, like yourself, who point the finger so readily at other nations.

Iran isnt the one perpetrating war of aggression, installing puppet governments and handing over control of other nation's resources to our global corporate profiteers. But then, all it takes to get the sheeple screaming is to print some alleged comments like "death to America" even though its our leaders racking up the body counts in the region.

 

And if you think the occasional CIA mission to kill a dictator is morally equivalent to beheadings in the streets of Tehran, or to providing money and haven for terrorist training facilities, then you are truly naive.

We'll come back to this in a minute.

It isn't a matter of pointing fingers, it's a matter of making the world a better place. It doesn't matter who's "fault" nuclear proliferation is. The fact is that it needs to be stopped, and the best place to try to stop it is with nations pursuing nuclear weapons that don't yet have them, such as Iran.

You just criticized my terminology and called me a regurgitative drone. The bold words are inflammatory terminology directly regurgitated from the mouths of Green and Socialist leaders.

Iran isn't perpetrating any wars of aggression or installing puppets only because it doesn't yet have the capability, not because the ayatollahs' hearts are filled with love and compassion for the people of the world. Do you really believe that Iran will be content to live side by side with Israel as long as the latter leaves the former alone?

 

Actually, yes. I think it's possible.

Listen to this NPR clip of what an Iranian Jew has to say about relations between Iran and Israel. It's very short, so it's not like it will take much effort.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4497587

 

Not particularly enlightening. The only message is "War is bad," followed by a brief history lesson on why Israel and Iran would make good allies.

None of this changes the fact that the people with the weapons in Tehran view America as the Great Satan, and Israel as a scourge to be pushed into the sea.