Hitler in a Head Scarf?

[Calabrio]

A national radio guy, that I don't have much regard for, often uses that term "Hitler in a HeadScarf" when discussing Iran and Islamofacists. Seems prophetic now.

Iran eyes badges for Jews
Law would require non-Muslim insignia

Chris Wattie
National Post

Friday, May 19, 2006

Jews were made to wear stars to identify them in Nazi Germany.

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said.

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

"We are not here to answer such questions."

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called "chilling," and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

"There are some very frightening parallels here," he said. "It's time to start considering how we're going to deal with this person."

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but Tehran believed by Western nations to be developing its own nuclear military capability, in defiance of international protocols and peace treaties.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

cwattie@nationalpost.com

 

[raVeneyes]

oh great...now we have an excuse to go bomb iran....here we go again.

 

[MrWilson]

:: picks up rifle and bag::

Lets roll!

 

[mach8]

oh great...now we have an excuse to go bomb iran....here we go again.

Do we need an excuse to bomb Iran?

At one time the United States was a sovereign nation willing to put the interest of America ahead of other nations. It seems to have worked out for us in the long run. Maybe we should go back to that and let the chips fall where they may. We cannot be the worlds policeman, we cannot make everyone like us, we cannot make third world countries into utopias, we cannot eliminate poverty, greed, supidity, and hunger from the world.

We can make the United States a refuge for those who seek to better their lives.

 

[JoeyGood]

Do we need an excuse to bomb Iran?

At one time the United States was a sovereign nation willing to put the interest of America ahead of other nations. It seems to have worked out for us in the long run. Maybe we should go back to that and let the chips fall where they may. We cannot be the worlds policeman, we cannot make everyone like us, we cannot make third world countries into utopias, we cannot eliminate poverty, greed, supidity, and hunger from the world.

We can make the United States a refuge for those who seek to better their lives.

:I

 

[fossten]

oh great...now we have an excuse to go bomb iran....here we go again.

You don't think we have a jolly good reason to bomb Iran? Everything's an excuse to you? Are you anti-Israel? Do you not believe in protecting our allies?

Please answer this, Ravey, I really want to hear you explain why we should allow Iran to continue to build nukes, threaten Israel AND us, and buy missiles from Russia.

 

[raVeneyes]

You don't think we have a jolly good reason to bomb Iran? Everything's an excuse to you? Are you anti-Israel? Do you not believe in protecting our allies?

Please answer this, Ravey, I really want to hear you explain why we should allow Iran to continue to build nukes, threaten Israel AND us, and buy missiles from Russia.

Assuming the story is true (we have not seen any documentation directly from the country and only have reports from exiles), no we do not have any sort of reason to bomb Iran...only excuses.

Am I anti-Israel? No

Do I believe in protecting our allies? Yes

Have any direct actions been made against our allies including Israel? NO!

Israel's borders stand strong... Just because the Iranian president says something stupid does not mean that our allies are under threat. That would be like China invading the US every time Bush said something stupid...they wouldn't have good reason behind it.

This preemptive warfare crap needs to be stopped. We, the United States of America, have no right to invade other sovereign nations just because they "pose a threat". We only have the right to defend ourselves should our borders or the borders or sovereignty of our allies be breached. Until that point THREATS MEAN NOTHING.

 

[mach8]

Ah, but threats are ment to mean something, or they would not be made. It's a fine point when one should put up with something and when one should not put up with something. To respond like a mad dog to any threat is no doubt poor policy, but to ignore theats as having no validity until it's too late is also a poor policy.

If any nation threatens the U.S. at this time in history, given the actions of our last two presidents, I would think they are not very intelligent and have some agenda we may not be aware of. It is unfortunate that the welfare of such large numbers of the worlds population is subject to the personal whims of the few. Perhaps wars should start with the execution of the nations leaders, then proceed from there.

 

[fossten]

This preemptive warfare crap needs to be stopped. We, the United States of America, have no right to invade other sovereign nations just because they "pose a threat". We only have the right to defend ourselves should our borders or the borders or sovereignty of our allies be breached. Until that point THREATS MEAN NOTHING.

Says who? You? The corrupt UN? Don't make me laugh. If somebody brandished a rifle across the street from your house and yelled that he was going to kill your wife (assuming you have one), would you just go home and say, "Well, honey, I can't do anything until he actually shoots at you."

That's exactly what Iran is doing. They aren't all the way on the other side of the world anymore. They have missiles that can reach our homeland. I suppose you'd be satisfied to see LA disappear in a bright flash before we actually did anything about it? If that happened you'd be screaming for Bush's head on the end of a pike. Don't try to foist your lame hypocrisy on me. The President has an obligation to protect our country, not just to avenge it.

Besides, who said anything about invading? We will probably just let Israel attack their facilities or do it ourselves, but an invasion wouldn't be necessary, only removal of nuclear capability and, hopefully, removal of Mahmoud.

You, sir, are an apologist for pacifist thinking. People that think like you are the reason we were attacked on 9/11. You forget that we are actually STILL AT WAR, and any nation that appears to ally with our enemies in effect MAKES THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY in the middle of said war. I can only thank God that people like you aren't in charge of policy in this country, or we'd all be dead.

 

[raVeneyes]

It is unfortunate that the welfare of such large numbers of the worlds population is subject to the personal whims of the few. Perhaps wars should start with the execution of the nations leaders, then proceed from there.

Now there's a policy you could run a political campaign platform from!

 

[raVeneyes]

If somebody brandished a rifle across the street from your house and yelled that he was going to kill your wife (assuming you have one), would you just go home and say, "Well, honey, I can't do anything until he actually shoots at you."

I'd say: "Well honey, he hasn't shot that thing at our house. Let's be careful and make sure he's not aiming it at us, let's also let our neighbors know what his threat was, and see if he's made any similar threats or actually shot at anyone. If he shoots at us all bets are off, I'll kill him."

That's all assuming there's no police force and we're using people as synonyms for nations.

That's exactly what Iran is doing. They aren't all the way on the other side of the world anymore. They have missiles that can reach our homeland.

Where is the intelligence report that shows this...or even an unsubstantiated news report. To my knowledge there are no ICBMs outside the US, UK, France, China, and Russia...and to hit the US from Iran would be one HECK of an ICBM requiring knowledge of space flight and space rocketry technology...none of which are on Iran's top priority list.

"You should know by now that the way we do things around here is that you don't go around just making wild claims. You must back up your statements with facts."

You, sir, are an apologist for pacifist thinking.

There is not one pacifistic bone in my body...I have on more than one occasion agreed that action was necessary and good. Example: Kuwait gets invaded by Iraq...Go blow the :q:q:q:q out of the invading army and the country and government that invaded.

People that think like you are the reason we were attacked on 9/11.

No, the reason we were attacked on our own soil is people like you; willing at any turn to do what they think "necessary" to "preserve our way of life" all while actually trampling on the rights we hold dear and treating other peoples in ways that we would kill others for. People and Nations have a right to live their lives as they see fit with their own belief systems intact. They have the right to refuse our systems of government, our lifestyles, to have their own internal struggles without our interference, to be themselves, and unless we're paying lip-service to the constitution we have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that we do not interfere in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness both for ourselves and for other nations and peoples.

You forget that we are actually STILL AT WAR, and any nation that appears to ally with our enemies in effect MAKES THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY in the middle of said war.

Bush declared the war over and won.

It takes more than an appearance of guilt to in fact confer guilt. This is the most ridiculous bullsh!t statement I've seen come out of anyone in quite a long time.

I can only thank God that people like you aren't in charge of policy in this country, or we'd all be dead.

And I can only thank God that people like you have such a hard time expressing yourselves, otherwise you might actually be seen as saying something worth listening to.

 

[fossten]

I'd say: "Well honey, he hasn't shot that thing at our house. Let's be careful and make sure he's not aiming it at us, let's also let our neighbors know what his threat was, and see if he's made any similar threats or actually shot at anyone. If he shoots at us all bets are off, I'll kill him."

That's all assuming there's no police force and we're using people as synonyms for nations.

Wow. What a piece of work. You have NO idea how to keep a nation safe. (Head in sand)

Where is the intelligence report that shows this...or even an unsubstantiated news report. To my knowledge there are no ICBMs outside the US, UK, France, China, and Russia...and to hit the US from Iran would be one HECK of an ICBM requiring knowledge of space flight and space rocketry technology...none of which are on Iran's top priority list.
"You should know by now that the way we do things around here is that you don't go around just making wild claims. You must back up your statements with facts."

I will amend my previous comment to retract the statement about missiles reaching US soil. I mixed that up with North Korea. Nevertheless, the rest of my comment still stands.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/iran/missile2004.htm
Iran Missile Update - 2004

The Risk Report
Volume 10 Number 2 (March-April 2004)

Iran continues to develop its ballistic missile capability, despite a number of setbacks in recent flight tests. Since 2000, Iran has focused its efforts on the Shahab 3 medium-range missile, which is capable of reaching Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and U.S. forces in the Middle East. Although several tests of the Shahab 3 appear to have failed, a ceremony was held on July 20, 2003 marking the distribution of the missile to Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The Central Intelligence Agency now considers Iran's missile arsenal to include "some" Shahab 3 missiles. The fate of the Shahab 4 missile, originally planned as a follow-on version of the Shahab 3 and able to attain parts of Eastern Europe, is unclear.

Iran's missile program continues to depend on imports from China, North Korea and Russia, all of which have sold either missile equipment, technology, or expertise. These imports have helped Iran towards self-sufficiency in missile production.

Iranian officials have said that their country's missiles are meant only for defense and deterrence, but the U.S. government views Iran's missiles as an offensive threat. Most U.S. intelligence agencies predict that the United States will "most likely" face a ballistic missile threat from Iran by 2015. And in March 2002, Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson, Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that Iran's missiles are intended "to deter the U.S. and to intimidate Iran's neighbors."

No, the reason we were attacked on our own soil is people like you; willing at any turn to do what they think "necessary" to "preserve our way of life" all while actually trampling on the rights we hold dear and treating other peoples in ways that we would kill others for....

People and Nations have a right to live their lives as they see fit with their own belief systems intact. They have the right to refuse our systems of government, our lifestyles, to have their own internal struggles without our interference, to be themselves,

(Thank you, Mr. Ward Churchill wannabe)

So you believe:

1. The United States is to blame for all international terrorism.
2. We DESERVED to be attacked on 9/11.
3. We should NOT defend ourselves; rather, we should beg the terrorists' forgiveness and mercy.
4. Other nations have a right to foist their malevolent societal abnorms upon any nation, including us, and we do not have the right to oppose that when it infringes on our own freedoms.
5. Terrorists aren't evil; they are simply misunderstood and are trying to get attention.

Perfect cowardly, guilt-ridden pacifism. What you don't get is that we are actually IN A WAR. Therefore, any threats during a shooting war are to be treated differently than they would be in peacetime. There's no difference between the Kuwait invasion by Iraq and the attack on us on 9/11 in terms of WAR STATUS.

and unless we're paying lip-service to the constitution we have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that we do not interfere in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness both for ourselves and for other nations and peoples.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? BTW, name ONE ARAB NATION that recognizes inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its people.

Bush declared the war over and won.

You are referring to the War on Terror? :bowrofl: Wrong. That's idiotic. Bush consistently states that we are in an ongoing war on terror. That's a ridiculous, absurd, easily refutable, irresponsible, ignorant statement.

Bush NEVER declared the war over. He did declare "mission accomplished" when we TOOK BAGHDAD. That's normal when you conquer the enemy's capital. Big difference between 'mission' and 'war.' Duh.

If anybody's living in denial over the war being over, it's YOUR liberal leaders in Congress like Murtha and the Traitor Kerry, who constantly DEMAND that we "BRING OUR TROOPS HOME" like a bunch of turn-tail cowards. I guess you're with those guys, huh?

"The terrorists haven't given up. They're tough-minded. They like to kill," said Bush, who spoke days after the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. "There will be more tough fighting ahead."

GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3 - President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack."

"We are on the offensive against terrorists and all who support them," Bush said, cheered heartily by the Air Force members and their families at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base outside Dayton.

"We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder. We will act, whenever it is necessary, to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people."

"The United States will not stand by and wait for another attack or trust in the restraint and good intentions of evil men."

"Our nation is still at war," Bush said. "The enemies of America plot against us. And many of our fellow citizens are still serving and sacrificing and facing danger in distant places."

And I can only thank God that people like you have such a hard time expressing yourselves blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Expressive enough for you? (Like I care)

 

[raVeneyes]

Sure, you're always expressive, but as usual your ideas are stupid enough to prove my point. It's so painfully obvious you care by how much time you just spent in replying, and your statement is so riddled with illogical, wild-eyed, irrational, grasping conclusions and ad-hominem attacks that you've quite handily provided an example of a time when you're having a hard time expressing yourself. Thank God, otherwise you might actually be seen as saying something worth listening to.

 

[fossten]

Sure, you're always expressive...blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...personal attacks...blah blah blah blah blah...

All I've done is refute or properly categorize each and every comment you made. Sorry you don't like it, but that's what you get for being anti-American.

 

[raVeneyes]

All I've done is refute or properly categorize each and every comment you made. Sorry you don't like it, but that's what you get for being anti-American.

You've done no such thing, and your personal attacks are not necessary.

Also please note I did not personally attack you, and as usual you personally attack me for questioning the intelligence and validity of your ideas.

 

[Calabrio]

I'd say: "Well honey, he hasn't shot that thing at our house. Let's be careful and make sure he's not aiming it at us, let's also let our neighbors know what his threat was, and see if he's made any similar threats or actually shot at anyone. If he shoots at us all bets are off, I'll kill him."

That's all assuming there's no police force and we're using people as synonyms for nations.

You have got to be kidding. I don't want to even take this seriously. If you honestly mean this, you would deserve no respect. Especially since you're scenario states that there's no police force.

Since international relations are considered to take place in a state of anarchy, it's much like Hobees state of nature.

"If he shoots at us..." you say, if he shoots at you someone you love will likely die. Someone you love will be maimed. At best, something you've broken you back to earn will have been damaged or destroyed.

If a man is threatening my family with a gun, I will assuredly make sure he can never threaten them again. There is no second guessing, there is no question. There is no room to give him the benfit of the doubt. He is either killed, because in this state of nature you refer to, I will have made damn sure to have armed myself as well. And I, being an intelligent and rational individual, will have made sure to arm myself BETTER than him. And he will be killed or neutralized. And I don't wait to find out if his threats are empty, or if he never really intended to do it. These don't matter to me one bit. I can't afford to take his threat for granted. And I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He's armed and threatening the lives of my friends and family.

You don't give him the first shot. That only works in the movies and in the imaginations of liberals.

 

[raVeneyes]

You don't give him the first shot.

Well I do, and that would be the difference between your country and mine.

By all means my country would always be better armed than the country threatening me. I'd send people from my country over to find out what's really going on in his country, and I'd keep a very careful watch on what his country is doing, but I would never fire the first shot.

It worked throughout the cold war! Imagine if we'd fired the first ICBM full of nuclear weapons just because the USSR had developed nuclear weapons too! WE WOULDN'T BE HERE!

 

[Conti94]

A national radio guy, that I don't have much regard for, often uses that term "Hitler in a HeadScarf" when discussing Iran and Islamofacists. Seems prophetic now.

Iran eyes badges for Jews
Law would require non-Muslim insignia

Chris Wattie
National Post

Friday, May 19, 2006

Jews were made to wear stars to identify them in Nazi Germany.

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities -- the country is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. "They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he said.

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

"We are not here to answer such questions."

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called "chilling," and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

"There are some very frightening parallels here," he said. "It's time to start considering how we're going to deal with this person."

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but Tehran believed by Western nations to be developing its own nuclear military capability, in defiance of international protocols and peace treaties.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

cwattie@nationalpost.com

So they want jews and christians to where badges?? wow. Idiots probably want this so they can suicide bomb other religions easier that way they don't kill there own. Thats pretty disgusting.

 

[Calabrio]

Well I do, and that would be the difference between your country and mine.

Yeah, I would have a country left to give to my children. You would be dead or the slave or your neighbor.

It worked throughout the cold war! Imagine if we'd fired the first ICBM full of nuclear weapons just because the USSR had developed nuclear weapons too! WE WOULDN'T BE HERE!

Very different.
Moving out of the realm of hypothetical, first of all, we knew we were basically dealing with a rational actor when dealing with the Soviet Union. But to really examine your analogy here, imagine we dealt with the Soviet threat immediately after the defeat of Germany, BEFORE they had developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s. How many millions of people wouldn't have been killed by the hands of communist policy?

 

[fossten]

It worked throughout the cold war! Imagine if we'd fired the first ICBM full of nuclear weapons just because the USSR had developed nuclear weapons too! WE WOULDN'T BE HERE!

Unfortunately, your example does not support your position. The Soviets never threatened to launch nukes at us. If they had, that might have changed things, depending on who was in office. Furthermore, we weren't on an actual war footing with them. That's why they called it the Cold War. You should maybe read up on your history and learn what your terms mean.

Not only that, but the only reason we won the cold war (by the way, ALL wars should be won [i.e. ended], not just fought for the heck of it) was because Reagan finally stood up to the Soviets and bankrupted them after wussy Carter just about lost it for us.

Moreover, if we had found out the Soviets were going to launch a nuclear ICBM attack on us, you'd better believe the best MILITARY STRATEGY is to launch first! Only a complete moron would disagree with that strategy. Care to opine?

 

[raVeneyes]

The Soviets never threatened to launch nukes at us.

Iran has never threatened to launch nukes at us.

Going back to your previous analogy, Iran is more like a neighbor, who in a neighborhood where only three of us own canons, starts purchasing the metal to build a canon. He could just be building a cauldron to boil stew in the back yard, but he could just as well be building a canon. He's a bit crazy, so we think he might actually be building a canon, but he swears he's only building a back yard cooking device.

If they had, that might have changed things, depending on who was in office. Furthermore, we weren't on an actual war footing with them. That's why they called it the Cold War. You should maybe read up on your history and learn what your terms mean.

We are not on an actual war footing with Iran, perhaps you should learn what this term means.

Not only that, but the only reason we won the cold war (by the way, ALL wars should be won [i.e. ended], not just fought for the heck of it) was because Reagan finally stood up to the Soviets and bankrupted them after wussy Carter just about lost it for us.

HA! The only reason the country didn't go bankrupt in the 80's was because the countries we owed huge debts to decided not to cash in all at the same time.

Moreover, if we had found out the Soviets were going to launch a nuclear ICBM attack on us, you'd better believe the best MILITARY STRATEGY is to launch first! Only a complete moron would disagree with that strategy. Care to opine?

You are correct, if we had credible intelligence, such as troop movements combined with communications intercepts and knowledge of an order to start a war we would have shot first.... or would we? We had all those things during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet we staid our hand.

 

[raVeneyes]

Yeah, I would have a country left to give to my children. You would be dead or the slave or your neighbor.

So says you...we don't really live in this hypothetical neighborhood, so it's hard to tell. I think I would still be friends with my neighbors because I didn't go in guns blazing until it was clear that the crazy guy was truly crazy...you on the other hand would have divided the neighborhood in to those who thought the other guy was crazy, and those who didn't know the whole threat bit and just saw *you* as the crazy one.

Very different.
Moving out of the realm of hypothetical, first of all, we knew we were basically dealing with a rational actor when dealing with the Soviet Union. But to really examine your analogy here, imagine we dealt with the Soviet threat immediately after the defeat of Germany, BEFORE they had developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s. How many millions of people wouldn't have been killed by the hands of communist policy?

Throughout most of the cold war we weren't sure of the rationality of the Soviet Union.

If we'd attacked the USSR immediately after WWII for example, we would have lost millions more people to the hard Soviet winter and the same tactics that defeated the German war machine. Don't be fooled by the fact that we won WWII. Germany was much better equipped and armed than any single other army in that conflict, the reason Germany lost is twofold; it's leader was cocky, arrogant, stupid, and nuts and the entire manufacturing world was at the opposition's disposal, Germany ran out of resources much faster than the opposing armies.

 

[fossten]

Iran has never threatened to launch nukes at us.

Going back to your previous analogy, Iran is more like a neighbor, who in a neighborhood where only three of us own canons, starts purchasing the metal to build a canon. He could just be building a cauldron to boil stew in the back yard, but he could just as well be building a canon. He's a bit crazy, so we think he might actually be building a canon, but he swears he's only building a back yard cooking device.

You're leaving out the most important point: The part where the neighbor has threatened to block your driveway and to kill his next-door neighbor, who is your friend.

You must be the ONLY PERSON on earth that thinks that Iran is not a threat. I have no desire to engage in any more conversation about this with such a person. (head in sand)

We are not on an actual war footing with Iran, perhaps you should learn what this term means.

Duh. We are at war with Al Qaeda, which has support from Iran. Get a clue.

HA! The only reason the country didn't go bankrupt in the 80's was because the countries we owed huge debts to decided not to cash in all at the same time.

????? "Objection, your honor, IRRELEVANT."

You are correct, if we had credible intelligence, such as troop movements combined with communications intercepts and knowledge of an order to start a war we would have shot first.... or would we? We had all those things during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet we staid our hand.

Another Democratic President. We had no intel that said they were going to launch. Again you compare apples with oranges. I rest my case.

 

[raVeneyes]

You're leaving out the most important point: The part where the neighbor has threatened to block your driveway and to kill his next-door neighbor, who is your friend.

You must be the ONLY PERSON on earth that thinks that Iran is not a threat. I have no desire to engage in any more conversation about this with such a person. (head in sand)




Duh. We are at war with Al Qaeda, which has support from Iran. Get a clue.

????? "Objection, your honor, IRRELEVANT."

Another Democratic President. We had no intel that said they were going to launch. Again you compare apples with oranges. I rest my case.

I love how when you can't come up with a valid argument you just kludge together a bunch of statements that make no logical sense together and then say something along the lines of "I'm done with this argument".

Leaves me laughing every time.

 

[fossten]

I love how when you can't come up with a valid argument you just kludge together a bunch of statements that make no logical sense together and then say something along the lines of "I'm done with this argument".

Leaves me laughing every time.

What a brain. I'm responding to your disorganized, unrelated, irrelevant statements one at a time, and you expect THAT to be cohesive? Don't look now, but you're laughing at your own creation.

What's interesting is that you weren't able to respond logically to any one of my statements, so you go off on some meaningless diatribe, otherwise known as "flash and distract."

Either engage in logical debate without personal invective or go crawl back in your hole and quit wasting everyone's time.