[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why does anyone care what that man thinks? He has no power in Iran.

Because those who do seem to like what he has to say, otherwise they would have gotten rid of him in 2009.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Ahmadinejad has said many, many times that he'd like to wipe Israel from the face of the planet. I imagine if Israel were completely unarmed that he'd have done so already.

The question was, how does that affect the US?

I know, killing is wrong, but there's lots of killing going on around the world already that we're not raising an eyebrow over. So clearly killing in and of itself isn't sufficient to answer the question, namely why is this our problem?

[olePigeon]

Back to the original question, I couldn't find any statistics on gays being stoned to death in Israel. Plenty of threads on other forums regarding Glenn Beck asking that question, to which neither Glenn Beck nor people discussing the topic offer any relevant statistics.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why does anyone care what that man thinks? He has no power in Iran.

What? He's second in command.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The question was, how does that affect the US?

I know, killing is wrong, but there's lots of killing going on around the world already that we're not raising an eyebrow over. So clearly killing in and of itself isn't sufficient to answer the question, namely why is this our problem?

Because the US has fear of nuclear weapons. If Iran uses nukes, which again are atmospheric weapons, then we're all screwed. If Iran or North Korea didn't have nukes, would we really care? Iran has loads of oil too.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Because the US has fear of nuclear weapons. If Iran uses nukes, which again are atmospheric weapons, then we're all screwed. If Iran or North Korea didn't have nukes, would we really care?

There's at least 3 huge problems with that answer. First of all, to assume that Iran already has nuclear weapons is a stretch. Second, Israel definitely has nuclear weapons, so they can implement MAD just as well (better even, with their closer proximity) with or without us. Third, Iran doesn't need Israel in order to be in a war, they were warring with Iraq for a decade. So if you want to believe they have the potential to use nuclear weapons, the existence or not of Israel is irrelevant.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There's at least 3 huge problems with that answer. First of all, to assume that Iran already has nuclear weapons is a stretch.

Which I wasn't assuming. I said IF Iran USES nukes. Which also doesn't imply that they have to have created their own nuclear weapons. We know that Russia happens to misplace quite a few nukes every year, somehow.

Second, Israel definitely has nuclear weapons, so they can implement MAD just as well (better even, with their closer proximity) with or without us.

Indeed, but their weapons are a result of military aid from the US. The US trusts Israel, and Israel doesn't generally blow things up just to blow things up.

Third, Iran doesn't need Israel in order to be in a war, they were warring with Iraq for a decade. So if you want to believe they have the potential to use nuclear weapons, the existence or not of Israel is irrelevant.

I didn't say Iran needs Israel to be in a war. What I am saying is that the US uses Israel as a counterbalance in the region. I don't even know why I'm arguing this point because it's happened before with Israel's bombing of Baghdad.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Which I wasn't assuming. I said IF Iran USES nukes. Which also doesn't imply that they have to have created their own nuclear weapons. We know that Russia happens to misplace quite a few nukes every year, somehow.

So... we shouldn't need to be involved yet?

Indeed, but their weapons are a result of military aid from the US.

So... our involvement (which was overkill) should be over by now?

The US trusts Israel, and Israel doesn't generally blow things up just to blow things up.

Debatable. Both sides blow lots of things up, for reasons they ardently believe are retaliatory but the other side disagrees (it is true of nearly all conflicts).

I didn't say Iran needs Israel to be in a war. What I am saying is that the US uses Israel as a counterbalance in the region. I don't even know why I'm arguing this point because it's happened before with Israel's bombing of Baghdad.

The question is why should we even be in the region. The answer "so we can control the region" is circular.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So...

The question is why should we even be in the region. The answer "so we can control the region" is circular.

Which is why you end up with passenger jets being used as flying bombs, ships having explosives detonated off the hall while in ports and embassy's being bombed to rubble.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Which is why you end up with passenger jets being used as flying bombs, ships having explosives detonated off the hall while in ports and embassy's being bombed to rubble.

Yeah sure, and a crazy, backward-ass 10th century belief system and its nutty followers have nothing to do with it.

Someone lie to me again that lefties don't make up excuses for terrorists.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So... we shouldn't need to be involved yet?

No idea. I don't think anybody can answer that.

So... our involvement (which was overkill) should be over by now?

No idea about that either.

Debatable. Both sides blow lots of things up, for reasons they ardently believe are retaliatory but the other side disagrees (it is true of nearly all conflicts).

Sure, I agree. Israel can be very aggressive, but then again, if I were surrounded by neighbors who took potshots at my face every time I left my house, I probably would be too.

The question is why should we even be in the region. The answer "so we can control the region" is circular.

I agree 100%. I'm just stating what the US's stance post-9/11 has been. That isn't what I personally think though. But that's for another day.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yeah sure, and a crazy, backward-ass 10th century belief system and its nutty followers have nothing to do with it.

Someone lie to me again that lefties don't make up excuses for terrorists.

Terrorists or freedom fighters? Because in Libya we call them freedom fighters yet they are still a group of thugs no different from any of the "Terrorists" in other parts of the world.

Im not making up excuses for the terrorists, I just think the US is unaware of the reasons why they are a target. As a nation You piss them off, and they want to hurt you. The 3 most interfering nations on the planet, USofA, UK, Russia are also the ones who have been targeted the most by terrorists.

[imitchellg5]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Im not making up excuses for the terrorists, I just think the US is unaware of the reasons why they are a target. As a nation You piss them off, and they want to hurt you. The 3 most interfering nations on the planet, USofA, UK, Russia are also the ones who have been targeted the most by terrorists.

Bullshit- everything pisses off radical Muslims, from women wanting an education to cartoons, to who knows what.

And the people most targeted by Muslims... are other Muslims. By a LARGE percentage. So what excuse do you have for that? What do the targeted Muslims do to piss off the other Muslims? Try to get a *real* education other than some useless 'kill the infidel!' shit? Get out from under the thumb of some asshole mullah? Belong to the wrong sect?

[Athens]

You say everything pisses off radical Muslims, well what made them Radical in the first place.