In truth, I could see an argument against going to war with Iran on the practical grounds that no U.S. government today would do it properly. It would just end up like another Vietnam or Afghanistan.
@qtutoringhelps Yeah, there is that, but even if they fucked it up I still think that if the US committed to action in Iran then it would at least follow the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan in that the original regime would be toppled quite quickly. Also, unlike Iraq, if we took out the Iran regime there wouldn't be anyone to supply Iranian insurgents with material and training.
"... if the US committed to action in Iran then it would at least follow the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan in that the original regime would be toppled quite quickly. "
Yes, true, it would and it would probably shut down considerable financing of terrorism.
Yeah, the WMDs are in Iran now. Trust the war mongers. They have your best interests at heart.
You are in a combat arms position, right? I mean, you wouldn't just be advocating that OTHER people go to kill and die for some vague notion you have about possible future events, would you?
@blackacidlizzard I used to be a soldier, not that your question was relevant. Besides, it's not a 'vague notion about possible future events': it's a clear understanding of the fact that for the last 30+ years, the Iranian regime has been consistently targeting the West generally and the US specifically.
You're talking about "terrorist" organizations and operations for the most part, correct? How much have they done? Was Iran Involved in the barracks bombing in Beirut? If so, that was probably the biggest blow they landed, am I correct? It's not shit compared to what The US has done to Iranians, and it looks fair to classify all the activity as a reaction to US aggression.
@blackacidlizzard 'compared to what the US has done to Iranians'... I'm not claiming that the US foreign policy has been perfect - far, far from it - but to make a statement like that and drop the context of what the Iranian government has done to Iranians is profoundly dishonest. You must be bat-shit insane to hold that the US is the aggressor in this instance, seriously.
The problem is that I don't really see a plausible break in the past sixty years of history between the US and Iran. It seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation that this has been a continuous sequence of actions and reactions. And if we go all the way back to when involvement got heavy, it wasn't Iran who was the aggressor.
I'm also completely unconvinced of the claims made about what Iran has supposedly been doing for the past decade. I smell BS.
Ah, insults with no explanation, no reasoning, no evidence. Just empty assertion.
Yes, that is indeed where war mongers usually have to go sooner or later, because wars are almost never launched for anything approaching the reasons claimed.
Have fun parroting Leaonard "Strangelove" Piekoff. I'd prefer our species to avoid yet another slaughter for the good of the scumbag statesmen and allied interests.
@blackacidlizzard 'if we go all the way back to when involvement got heavy, it wasn't Iran who was the aggressor.' Where is your argument?
'I'm also completely unconvinced of the claims made about what Iran has supposedly been doing for the past decade.' That's not an argument either...
Don't go making bold assertions and expect me to have the patience to explain everything to you. And don't expect a stance beginning with 'everyone's lying' to get anywhere with anyone but conspiracy nutjobs.
Hah. It's not "everyone" making these claims. These are specific parties with clear interests in what is done, and the organizations they belong to don't have a track record of honesty and accuracy.
So you manipulate the black panthers, the skinheads and La Raza to all start spilling blood in my neighborhood, culminating in my neighborhood being put on lockdown by the emerging victor who you were backing the whole way. People who say the wrong things disappear
At this point, you can shut the fuck up about your bike. You might as well be one of these assholes who kill a white man woman or child and "justify" it by saying "he/she called me a nigger"
Oh those noble state-connected multi national corporations. They're so important that they shouldn't operate by the same rules as the rest of us. They are saints and should be given the forgiveness due saints.
Stealing from a person is wrong, but stealing from a well connected business is UNFORGIVABLE.
Read the comments. SOO clearly said that fomenting a bloody chaotic revolution and installing a puppet dictator is justified when a big petroleum company gets its equipments snatched.
@blackacidlizzard I didn't say that. I merely supported measures to depose a communist takeover (Mossadegh nationalized the oil fields and was offering the oil - a crucial strategic resource during the cold war - exclusively to the USSR and had held rigged elections a la the soviet model). I also said that I didn't view the US foreign policy as perfect.
You however are taking sides with a totalitarian regime whose stated aim is destroying Israel and with a long history of killing Americans.
@blackacidlizzard If you don't think that the stated aim of the Iran government is to destroy Israel then it's because you are downright delusional. Further, Iran is the initiator of violence, not a state responding to violence, to say otherwise again makes you delusional.
'One of many'...
It reamins the case that you are taking sides with a totalitarian regime that directly and indirectly attacks the US and has stated the aim of destroying Israel completely... Go fuck yourself.
1. Sorry, it's simply not true that Iran STATES an intention to destroy Israel. You can guess at their true intentions all you want, but you're not a mind reader.
2. If you look at the past sixty years as a continuous conflict, the US is the initiator. Outside intervention to the point of violent revolution and foreign commanded dictatorship is not a justified response to an act of theft.
1) 'Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.'
Would you like to guess which President said that?
2) No. Mossasegh was instituting a communist dictatorship... the CIA helped the existing constitutional monarch to oust him before it was too late- an action that Khomeini supported, denouncing Mossadegh as an enemy of Islam....
1. Perhaps this is a different quote than the one i have heard, or perhaps it is the same. There is controversy about the actual translation of the soundbite I am familiar with.
2. The "existing constitutional monarch" who was in exile. Communists were one of the groups who rose up in violent rebellion - I suppose one can spin this as the regime allowing non-state violence, but the commies were prompted to act by the CIA, as were some other groups.
@blackacidlizzard Why was he in exile? because the communists had threatened to kill him.
It appears that your position now is: The US started this by inciting revolutions against the commies, but if they didn't then they were behind the commies too.
Can you fill in the blanks in 'cognitive d---------'?
That's actually pretty common. The US supports Saudi Arabia, which supports Wahhabism, which has at least common cause and common membership with Al-Quieda, which is an enemy of the US. Governments are often involved in attacks against their own people under the pretense of being some other group - typically "true believers" are involved. The CIA did organize communist uprising in Iran.
As far as "Mossasegh was a commie," those claims look suspicious to me All enemies were called reds back then
@blackacidlizzard That looks suspicious to you? wtf? The guy nationalized industry and was going to start supplying oil exclusively to the USSR. What more do you need to label him a commie?
The argument for war against Iran is not merely that Iran is seeking WMDs. Since 1979, when U.S. embassy hostage-taking in Iran, Iran has been conclusively behind a spree of terrorist acts, using proxies like Hezbollah. 1. TWA hijacking, torturing/killing of Americans. 2. 1983 US embassy Lebanon bomb. 3. barracks of US Marines bombing, 241 dead. 4.) 1996 Khobar towers attack, 19 US servicemen dead. 5.) Today, Iran operates training camps for Iraqi insurgents.
Yes, I know. But as I have stated, all this has come within the context of an ongoing conflict kicked off by western powers with the US playing the largest role.
Let me give you a comparison. I do not consider dictatorships legitimate at all, so if Stalin's Russia defended itself against Hitler's Germany, I would have no basis on which to support the Nazis over the communists or vice versa. I would consider it a war between two evil gangs, neither of which would warrant supporting. Nor would I criticize Hitler for starting the war, because the issue isn't who started it, since the dictatorships have no right to exist to begin with.
So my question is, if you think all states are illegitimate (like I think dictatorships, whether Nazi, Communist, are illegitimate), why do you enter this debate all?
Jesus fucking Christ, are you such a fucking heartless motherfucker that you can watch millions of people die and say "well, because I think the leaders on both sides are bad people, I really don't care about those they oppress being slaughtered"? Shit, in my eyes that only makes warfare even worse.
"well, because I think the leaders on both sides are bad people, I really don't care about those they oppress being slaughtered"?
That's not an accurate depiction of what's happening for one. And if it were--which it's not--In what sense am I responsible for the slaughter or evil?
I'm sorry, war doesn't involve large amounts of non-participants and participants-by-compulsion being killed? I must visit the world on the other side of the wormhole you are apparently communicating through. It sounds like a lovely place.
I didn't bring up responsibility, but since you have I'll point out that you are advocating war. Social support influences action.
"... large amounts of non-participants and participants-by-compulsion being killed"
Please tell me your view of the world is not so distorted as to think that a place like Iran is made up of two types of people: the innocent, liberty-loving people and the small number of evil people forcing these innocents to participate in their evil schemes.
"think that Iran is made up of two types of people: the innocent..."
At least as much as the US is. Which is more of an attack on the average American than it is a defense of Iranians. If Hajj Achmed deserves a violent death, so does Joe Sixpack.
To you, starting a war is "defense." I'll make sure to remember that should I see you on the street, and I will act in "defense" of myself.
Depends on your goals. If your goal is to divert attention away from the shoddy construction of your position, you should divert attention onto the form of my replies. If you are interested in something besides petty ego games you won't get your panties twisted about presentation, but rather focus on the substance of my claims.
The domino theory has no good empirical evidence to back it up.
Slaughtering hundreds or thousands of people is generally a bad thing.
Trading with groups outside of your own political unit is a little more risky than domestic trade. Loss is part of the territory.
Iran has every reason to fear the west and the US in particular - The history of bloodshed between the parties in modern times was started by the west.
Moral-high-groundism is laughable coming from empire America hawks.
- The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives/trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives," and more: "8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi operatives traveled into or out of Iran between Oct 2000 and Feb 2001."
- Iran is known to welcome al Qaeda/Taliban fighters fleeing Afghanistan during the war.
- Iraqi "insurgents" get bomb training and technology from Iran.
Why?
Iran is committed to spreading fundamentalist Islam by force.
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck you Obama, Your an Embarrassment to this Country!!!!!!!!
One Big Ass Mistake America!!!!!!!
Tbolt1000TForLife 1 month ago
Comment removed
Tbolt1000TForLife 1 month ago
Comment removed
funktopunk 1 month ago
In truth, I could see an argument against going to war with Iran on the practical grounds that no U.S. government today would do it properly. It would just end up like another Vietnam or Afghanistan.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps Yeah, there is that, but even if they fucked it up I still think that if the US committed to action in Iran then it would at least follow the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan in that the original regime would be toppled quite quickly. Also, unlike Iraq, if we took out the Iran regime there wouldn't be anyone to supply Iranian insurgents with material and training.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
"... if the US committed to action in Iran then it would at least follow the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan in that the original regime would be toppled quite quickly. "
Yes, true, it would and it would probably shut down considerable financing of terrorism.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
LOL.
Yeah, the WMDs are in Iran now. Trust the war mongers. They have your best interests at heart.
You are in a combat arms position, right? I mean, you wouldn't just be advocating that OTHER people go to kill and die for some vague notion you have about possible future events, would you?
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard I used to be a soldier, not that your question was relevant. Besides, it's not a 'vague notion about possible future events': it's a clear understanding of the fact that for the last 30+ years, the Iranian regime has been consistently targeting the West generally and the US specifically.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
"used to be" is not "yes, if we go to war I will be deployed"
Might want to ask people who regret their "service" about whether having your own ass on the line for the policy you advocate is "relevant"
"for 30+ years the Iranian regime has been consistently targeting the West generally and the US specifically"
So it took them, what,. 20, 40 years to start reacting to western foreign policy against them? That's downright Ghandiesque.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard So... your position is that Iran isn't attacking us, but if they are then we deserve it?
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Well they are two separate issues, it is true.
You're talking about "terrorist" organizations and operations for the most part, correct? How much have they done? Was Iran Involved in the barracks bombing in Beirut? If so, that was probably the biggest blow they landed, am I correct? It's not shit compared to what The US has done to Iranians, and it looks fair to classify all the activity as a reaction to US aggression.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard 'compared to what the US has done to Iranians'... I'm not claiming that the US foreign policy has been perfect - far, far from it - but to make a statement like that and drop the context of what the Iranian government has done to Iranians is profoundly dishonest. You must be bat-shit insane to hold that the US is the aggressor in this instance, seriously.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
This instance?
The problem is that I don't really see a plausible break in the past sixty years of history between the US and Iran. It seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation that this has been a continuous sequence of actions and reactions. And if we go all the way back to when involvement got heavy, it wasn't Iran who was the aggressor.
I'm also completely unconvinced of the claims made about what Iran has supposedly been doing for the past decade. I smell BS.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Take a shower, you're covered in it.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Ah, insults with no explanation, no reasoning, no evidence. Just empty assertion.
Yes, that is indeed where war mongers usually have to go sooner or later, because wars are almost never launched for anything approaching the reasons claimed.
Have fun parroting Leaonard "Strangelove" Piekoff. I'd prefer our species to avoid yet another slaughter for the good of the scumbag statesmen and allied interests.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard 'if we go all the way back to when involvement got heavy, it wasn't Iran who was the aggressor.' Where is your argument?
'I'm also completely unconvinced of the claims made about what Iran has supposedly been doing for the past decade.' That's not an argument either...
Don't go making bold assertions and expect me to have the patience to explain everything to you. And don't expect a stance beginning with 'everyone's lying' to get anywhere with anyone but conspiracy nutjobs.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
The argument is : look at the timeline.
"a stance beginning with 'everyone's lying'"
Hah. It's not "everyone" making these claims. These are specific parties with clear interests in what is done, and the organizations they belong to don't have a track record of honesty and accuracy.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard You mean the timeline that begins with Mossadegh nationalizing (ie stealing) the property of western companies?
Whereas the Iranian government has a track record of... what?
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
I steal your bike.
So you manipulate the black panthers, the skinheads and La Raza to all start spilling blood in my neighborhood, culminating in my neighborhood being put on lockdown by the emerging victor who you were backing the whole way. People who say the wrong things disappear
At this point, you can shut the fuck up about your bike. You might as well be one of these assholes who kill a white man woman or child and "justify" it by saying "he/she called me a nigger"
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard That's the single stupidest analogy I've ever heard. It's so dumb I'm not even gonna explain why it's wrong.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Oh those noble state-connected multi national corporations. They're so important that they shouldn't operate by the same rules as the rest of us. They are saints and should be given the forgiveness due saints.
Stealing from a person is wrong, but stealing from a well connected business is UNFORGIVABLE.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Straw man anyone? Dan, does this idiot even have an argument?
WarVideo 4 months ago
@WarVideo
Read the comments. SOO clearly said that fomenting a bloody chaotic revolution and installing a puppet dictator is justified when a big petroleum company gets its equipments snatched.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard I didn't say that. I merely supported measures to depose a communist takeover (Mossadegh nationalized the oil fields and was offering the oil - a crucial strategic resource during the cold war - exclusively to the USSR and had held rigged elections a la the soviet model). I also said that I didn't view the US foreign policy as perfect.
You however are taking sides with a totalitarian regime whose stated aim is destroying Israel and with a long history of killing Americans.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
"totalitarian regime"
one of many.
"stated aim is destroying Israel"
Hah, no, not really.
"a long history of killing Americans"
Both postdating and being of a smaller scale than the history of Americans killing them.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard If you don't think that the stated aim of the Iran government is to destroy Israel then it's because you are downright delusional. Further, Iran is the initiator of violence, not a state responding to violence, to say otherwise again makes you delusional.
'One of many'...
It reamins the case that you are taking sides with a totalitarian regime that directly and indirectly attacks the US and has stated the aim of destroying Israel completely... Go fuck yourself.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
1. Sorry, it's simply not true that Iran STATES an intention to destroy Israel. You can guess at their true intentions all you want, but you're not a mind reader.
2. If you look at the past sixty years as a continuous conflict, the US is the initiator. Outside intervention to the point of violent revolution and foreign commanded dictatorship is not a justified response to an act of theft.
3. Fuck Israel.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
1) 'Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.'
Would you like to guess which President said that?
2) No. Mossasegh was instituting a communist dictatorship... the CIA helped the existing constitutional monarch to oust him before it was too late- an action that Khomeini supported, denouncing Mossadegh as an enemy of Islam....
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
... Later, Pahlavi planned to give women the vote... thus triggering the Islamic revolution.
3) Fuck you.
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
1. Perhaps this is a different quote than the one i have heard, or perhaps it is the same. There is controversy about the actual translation of the soundbite I am familiar with.
2. The "existing constitutional monarch" who was in exile. Communists were one of the groups who rose up in violent rebellion - I suppose one can spin this as the regime allowing non-state violence, but the commies were prompted to act by the CIA, as were some other groups.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Why was he in exile? because the communists had threatened to kill him.
It appears that your position now is: The US started this by inciting revolutions against the commies, but if they didn't then they were behind the commies too.
Can you fill in the blanks in 'cognitive d---------'?
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
That's actually pretty common. The US supports Saudi Arabia, which supports Wahhabism, which has at least common cause and common membership with Al-Quieda, which is an enemy of the US. Governments are often involved in attacks against their own people under the pretense of being some other group - typically "true believers" are involved. The CIA did organize communist uprising in Iran.
As far as "Mossasegh was a commie," those claims look suspicious to me All enemies were called reds back then
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard That looks suspicious to you? wtf? The guy nationalized industry and was going to start supplying oil exclusively to the USSR. What more do you need to label him a commie?
StudentOfObjectivism 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
There are many more reasons for power-grabbing and making one alliance over another than ideology.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism I think he just wanted an excuse to say the "N" word.
WarVideo 4 months ago
@WarVideo
Nah, I'm not a cowering guilt-ridden Uncle Jamima. I don't feel a need for an excuse to say "nigger."
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
The argument for war against Iran is not merely that Iran is seeking WMDs. Since 1979, when U.S. embassy hostage-taking in Iran, Iran has been conclusively behind a spree of terrorist acts, using proxies like Hezbollah. 1. TWA hijacking, torturing/killing of Americans. 2. 1983 US embassy Lebanon bomb. 3. barracks of US Marines bombing, 241 dead. 4.) 1996 Khobar towers attack, 19 US servicemen dead. 5.) Today, Iran operates training camps for Iraqi insurgents.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
Yes, I know. But as I have stated, all this has come within the context of an ongoing conflict kicked off by western powers with the US playing the largest role.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
So you believe a state like Iran has "sovereignty," "rights," "legitimacy," etc.?
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
I don't believe any state is a rights holder, nor is any state "legitimate" by may standards of decency.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
So by what standard can you criticize America?
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
You're asking that in response to my stating that I view all states as illegitimate???
"Legitimacy" is typically considered to be a standard of critique.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Let me give you a comparison. I do not consider dictatorships legitimate at all, so if Stalin's Russia defended itself against Hitler's Germany, I would have no basis on which to support the Nazis over the communists or vice versa. I would consider it a war between two evil gangs, neither of which would warrant supporting. Nor would I criticize Hitler for starting the war, because the issue isn't who started it, since the dictatorships have no right to exist to begin with.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
So my question is, if you think all states are illegitimate (like I think dictatorships, whether Nazi, Communist, are illegitimate), why do you enter this debate all?
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
I oppose mass muder.
Jesus fucking Christ, are you such a fucking heartless motherfucker that you can watch millions of people die and say "well, because I think the leaders on both sides are bad people, I really don't care about those they oppress being slaughtered"? Shit, in my eyes that only makes warfare even worse.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
"well, because I think the leaders on both sides are bad people, I really don't care about those they oppress being slaughtered"?
That's not an accurate depiction of what's happening for one. And if it were--which it's not--In what sense am I responsible for the slaughter or evil?
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
I'm sorry, war doesn't involve large amounts of non-participants and participants-by-compulsion being killed? I must visit the world on the other side of the wormhole you are apparently communicating through. It sounds like a lovely place.
I didn't bring up responsibility, but since you have I'll point out that you are advocating war. Social support influences action.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
"... large amounts of non-participants and participants-by-compulsion being killed"
Please tell me your view of the world is not so distorted as to think that a place like Iran is made up of two types of people: the innocent, liberty-loving people and the small number of evil people forcing these innocents to participate in their evil schemes.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
No, I'm advocating defense against the advocates of war in Iran.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Innocent people are going to be murdered Iran regardless of my opinion or yours, and regardless of the actions of the US government.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
"think that Iran is made up of two types of people: the innocent..."
At least as much as the US is. Which is more of an attack on the average American than it is a defense of Iranians. If Hajj Achmed deserves a violent death, so does Joe Sixpack.
To you, starting a war is "defense." I'll make sure to remember that should I see you on the street, and I will act in "defense" of myself.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
"Innocent people are going to be murdered Iran regardless"
So it doesn't matter if we kill more? Nuke the fucking US if that's your standard, innocent people already die here
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
" I'll make sure to remember that should I see you on the street, and I will act in "defense" of myself."
Oh please don't scare me, big boy.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
This is context dropping of the most lunatic kind. You are sick, demented weirdo. Please stay away.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
So the bloodthirsty promoter of "preemptive" war against a long-standing punching bag of the US accuses me of context dropping and lunacy?
Too fucking rich.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
You are clearly malicious; I have nothing further to communicate to you. Buzz off.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
Again. The promoter of violence, death, and suffering on a massive scale calls me "malicious."
God, I wish stupidity and hypocrisy were painful.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Where did I promote violence, death and suffering? YOU are promoting it by wanting to sustain the status quo in Iran.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
"God, I wish stupidity and hypocrisy were painful."
If it were--and in the long-term it is--a slithery libertarian blobs have grim prospects.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Let me understand your argument explicitly.
1. Nations do not exist, only individuals do.
2. There are unfortunate, innocent individuals in Iran.
3. Some of these blameless people do not want harm done to them via US invasion.
4. If the US invades Iran, some of these innocent people will be hurt or killed.
Is that a mis-characterization of your argument against war in Iran? Please let me know.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
1. Negative. Nations do exist. Atomism is retarded.
2. Duh.
3. Of course.
4. No kidding.
5. That's an argument? I fail to see any chain of connection or any conclusion.
6. Hypocrisy is usually most painful to those who the hypocrite harms.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
What is your argument, you obnoxious fuck?
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Why should anyone treat you with anything other than insults, when you clearly cannot engage in polite discussion?
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
@qtutoringhelps
Depends on your goals. If your goal is to divert attention away from the shoddy construction of your position, you should divert attention onto the form of my replies. If you are interested in something besides petty ego games you won't get your panties twisted about presentation, but rather focus on the substance of my claims.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Give me your argument as simply as you can put it, you slimy, disgusting piece of human shit.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
The domino theory has no good empirical evidence to back it up.
Slaughtering hundreds or thousands of people is generally a bad thing.
Trading with groups outside of your own political unit is a little more risky than domestic trade. Loss is part of the territory.
Iran has every reason to fear the west and the US in particular - The history of bloodshed between the parties in modern times was started by the west.
Moral-high-groundism is laughable coming from empire America hawks.
blackacidlizzard 4 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
... (continued)...
- The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives/trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives," and more: "8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi operatives traveled into or out of Iran between Oct 2000 and Feb 2001."
- Iran is known to welcome al Qaeda/Taliban fighters fleeing Afghanistan during the war.
- Iraqi "insurgents" get bomb training and technology from Iran.
Why?
Iran is committed to spreading fundamentalist Islam by force.
qtutoringhelps 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is even better on this channel!
ColemanMulkerin 4 months ago