How is this not blindingly obvious? Look at N. Korea. They would have been toppled 30+ years ago w/o nukes. The Il Dynasty is basically the Khmer Rouge with nukes.

Lol Britain? When have they not been there with us in lock step? You of all people should be old enough to remember that. Come one dude.

Wrt to the rest of the West - say Iran nukes or invades Israel tomorrow. Do you really think we wouldn't have a coalition of the willing? That's ridiculous.

Which tends to keep the "regime change" chicken hawks at bay.

If you are the supreme leader of Iran worried about the Bush 3.0 clown car cabinet trumping up BS charges to invade your country (not that that could happen right?) - do you a) want nukes or b) not want nukes?

I know you get this. Sometimes I wonder if you're actually just a very clever shill for the left - actively demonstrating all the non-thought-through mantras of the right.

I think the big misconception about nuclear weapons is what their strategic role is. Their dominate role is offensive. It permits aggression (or other act intolerable by the global community) because it removes the ability for others to attack you.

I'm not particularly scared of Iran going out and using a nuke. If they had the capacity, the chances of them dropping one on Riyadh or Tel Aviv is trivial. But what I AM scared of, is the degree to which Iran can push their weight around knowing that they can no longer be attacked. Just like nobody can attack NK without sacrificing ten million people in Seoul, just like nobody can do a damned thing if Russia wants to annex south ossetia or crimea.

Yeah of course that's the whole game. The question is how far are you willing to go to stop it? To have to use diplomacy with Iran vs. threat of invasion? I'm willing to use any means up to large scale bombing or invasion. I just don't think the latter two are worth it.

Conservatives think we can keep Iran from a nuke forever with a combination of sanctions, Mossad assassinations and "targeted bombings" (but of course the implied - "oops those didn't work, gotta invade, no choice" is always in the back pocket).

Maybe that's the best path. But given neocons' recent track record, I'd rather give a chance to Obama's plan of getting Iran to agree to something that we feel very certain keeps them a year away from a nuke.

I'm not thekid, and i'm not gamblor.

And you're not a humanitarian. You don't care about improving lives,

You do care about seeing Israelis suffer though. Of course, not Muslim Israelis, or Christian Israelis, or Druze Israelis.

How nice of you to tell us what you know Iran knows. Its not your family who has to suffer if you're wrong, which is why you're so eager for others to make decisions based on what suzzer99 knows Iran knows.

Edit: Its time to learn how to multiquote, sir.

And yet, what do you think drives people to create these threads, and complain almost exclusively about Israel?

What drives people to accuse others of being... "Hasbara" ?

And once again: Do you , and others, and the mods, really not get what is meant when a poster comes here and decides to accuse others of being "Hasbara"?

Microbet don't you understand? This is another thread to complain about Israel. Not to actually answer any questions or to have an intelligent discussion. To someone like pidgeonpatrol, to someone like tripy, to someone like usedtoplay and anacardo and martymc and senorkeed, these are all "wars for Israel".

Oh you

Who are you then? Because you are clearly claiming deep knowledge of the entire personalities of a wide range of people on this forum who you have never actually interacted with in your two dozen posts.

Oh you, too, expert professional analyst and predictor, all-knower of things Iran and Iranian. Thank you so much for telling us what you know Iran knows, your opinion will be featured in articles and journals and , oh, wait,

your opinion is no reason for people who's lives are threatened daily to lower their guard.

Good thing you're here to shed tears for Iranian nuclear scientists,

there are no people more worthy of your tender love'n'care.

Watch this.

You watching?




I'm NC Flounce. Guy who took the time specifically to make sure people were familiar with posts and positions held by TheKid345 in the thread in which people (well, mostly Chez) were discussing JJ's "trolling" of TheKid345 and TheKid345's welching (welshing?) on the deal made with JJ not to post in PU until June 1st.

I felt the thread needed to be refocused on why thekid deserved to be trolled and how anyone lambasting JJ for doing so had to be really ignorant of who thekid was here and his work across multiple sub-forums which I happened to read- for all I know he posted in other sub-forums and was an obvious troll in them as well.


I asked you a couple questions though, Uke, do me a solid and get back to me with an answer.

Edit: In other words, i'm someone who has been lurking long enough to "know" deep knowledge of the entire personalities of a wide range of people on this forum who I have never actually interacted with.

I knew you had it in you, Uke. And to suggest such a thing, and expressing concern about it, means you have sympathy for - that you are at the very least not pleased by - the notion of innocent Israeli civilians spending their lives under a hail of rockets from Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Thank you Uke.

I am 100% sure that it is definitely not Gamblor.

oh I agree. But the whole following a range of forum members around incognito and studying their habits to oh so suddenly start a flurry of post is.....weird. Maybe that is a true story, but it is a weird one. And a weird cover too, if it is that.

NC: let that above post be the last time you try to put words in my mouth.

I have never been sarcastic on an internet message forum.

IIran has been attempting to acquire the nuclear capability capability decades before we invaded Iraq. it is goo late back on the heartland to try and rationalize the statement that Iran knows that they will be wiped off the map by Israel if they use the bomb but a strike against the US would be survivable.
You seem to think you are espousing the view of the left when you assert that a nuclear Iran is a worry to neocon's and nobody else is concerned. I believe that this view is solely your own and is not shared by any country in the world with the possible exception of NK. I could support this position by pointing to UN security council resolutions, the global sanction regime, statements by the administration, etc. It would be easier if you threw me a link where someone holds espoused a view that you found reasonable.

Can you make your post a little more readable? I mean I am half drunk but I still don't start my post with a comma, then a space. And if I do I care enough to correct it.

What exactly is the argument and question? All I got is - Iran has been trying to get a nuke since the 70s, therefore the argument that Iran knows they will be wiped off the map if they nuke Israel is invalid because... [unclear].

Of course Iran getting a nuke is bad. How bad? Maybe try reading my posts instead of playing your usual affable intentionally obtuse online character (seattlelou, mage, +7 shield vs. enemy logic):

The fear is that when Iran gets nukes then Saudi Arabia and maybe Egypt do also bec, wait for it……………wait for it…………….they no longer trust the U.S. very much.

Think about it for a moment: Israel gets destroyed by say, 3 bombs smuggled in. Can it be proved that they came from Iran? And then the POTUS says 'Ok, let's open up the football and launch enough nuclear weapons to turn Iran to dust?' And kill who knows how many w/ the fall out downwind. You claim it as a sure thing bec it supports your position. I suppose the blasted Israelis will never know if you were right.

'Coalition of the willing', what a joke. I can just see France sending in the troops, what a laugh.

I agree with what you have written. I am not worried about a sneak first strike sort of scenario. That could change if the Supreme leader has a chat with Allah. I don't hate religious people but I fear fanatics who balance life on earth versus the afterlife concerns as part of their job description. . Unpredictability with a tinge of bat**** is a good play.

Seems like a pretty questionable justification for murder to me. Especially as the people being killed aren't even accused of doing any of those things.

Thanks for answering my questions. You've very brave to do so.




"Following a range of forum members around incognito"

Its called reading, I read threads and posts, before I had an account.

"Studying their habits"

Its called reading, I read threads and posts, before I had an account.


Maybe you can answer my questions, maybe you don't want to,

I think you're a good guy Uke, so i'm willing to bet this is some sort of cognitive dissonance on your part - you don't want to acknowledge you keep the company of bigots, so you pretend they're here because they care. How cute, how convenient.

Also I have no idea what words I put in your mouth, please let me know so I won't put them in your mouth again. I would hate to put things in people's mouths that were unwanted.

You can question their justification all day and night. We are both in the dark as to a lot of the specifics, but its pretty obvious what the goals of the Iranian regime are. They make it quite clear.

What should also be clear is why people like tripy post here.

Oh cool. Cuz earlier someone itt said.

I didn't make any claim about why Saddam, fired missiles. Only about why the US got involved in trying to stop it.

If Iran attacked, the US would do what it did when Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Eqypt attacked in 1967.

I suppose if we had a war hawk president who was looking for an excuse to bomb Iran, that could suffice. It wouldn't be because of Israel though and they'd bomb Iran for attacking Yemen.

Remember when someone in this forum got laughed at for complaining that the united states wouldn't defend its allies if it wasn't politically expedient?

Now suzzer is saying that the West would go to war with a country that would be armed with nuclear weapons on behalf of 6 million Jews?

Just another day in the life of the NEOCONZZZ

Also lol that Saddam "just tried to draw other countries into the fight" by dropping a few dozen missiles on Tel Aviv apartment buildings.

I take solace in the fact that, I'm pretty sure Israel has a policy that if they are nuked and destroyed, they are taking as much of the world with them as they can

Man this line of discussion is getting tiresome:

someone: Obama isn't doing enough to stop Iran from getting a nuke.

someone else: Ok what is your plan?

someone: Iran can't get a nuke, it would be bad.

someone else: Yes, agreed. But what is your plan to stop them and how far are you willing to go?

someone: Iran can't get a nuke, it would be bad.

someone else: sigh

1967 is not now. We attacked Iraq for no reason. The same trigger-happy bunch wants to attack Iran for no reason. If Iran actually gave us a reason it would be game over for them.