colon_pow: SupremeLeader: colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

Yes, Iran is truly an aggressive nation, invading other countries without any reason.

Bark!=Bite

you are correct. their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.

No, but they are purely unlikely. The reason people don't think Iran is a threat is that it's not. We may revise our opinion if it looks like they're close to actually building a nuclear bomb.

No. Stop. Do not link me a WND article about how Iran's ordering aluminum tubes or something, or trying to buy uranium. Show me an article written by a UN weapons monitor that states that Iran has all the elements it needs to build a nuclear bomb within less than a year and the facilities and technical know-how to use them, and I will reconsider whether it's useful.

One of the Ayatollahs even declared that nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islam. You're feeding the baseless culture of fear that caused the Cold War and still permeates our society. Our government's hands won't be clean until the last of the Cold Warriors is dead.

changeit: False flag?

In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[6]

In 1954, Israel sponsored bombings against US and UK interests in Cairo aiming to cause trouble between Egypt and the West.[7] This operation, later dubbed the Lavon Affair, cost Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon his job. The state of Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[8]

Watch for upcoming fireworks as Mossad Iranian agents strike out at the "Great Satan".

There is NO moral compunction. The only thing they're concerned with is whether they may get caught AND publicly exposed.

Nevar forget Fernando Poo!

SupremeLeader:
And to be honest, if you were in charge of a country in the Middle East, you'd want nukes, especially if you wanted to stop any direct "reform attempts" from the US.

This. It's pretty obvious from the way we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear states that a nuke can have serious advantages for some countries. Unfortunately, saying to them "stop trying to develop deterrence or we'll bomb you" just isn't working, for some reason.

joonyer: I hear you. Apologies for getting a bit agitated. No offense intended to you.

n/p.

This is kind of representative, though, of a larger problem (which itself, I think, is mainly the fault of the Bush administration, and the collective mentality present during it): it's been nearly impossible for people to discuss hot issues without one side or the other--or both sides--feeling their "attack!" button being pressed.

It's a shame, really...

...but we can solve it by bombing brown people.

/kidding, on the last part, of course.

Bolton un-self-consciously using the phrase "credibility gap"? I LOL'd.

colon_pow: SupremeLeader: colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

Yes, Iran is truly an aggressive nation, invading other countries without any reason.

Bark!=Bite

you are correct. their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.

Their nuclear ambitions (such as they are) are almost purely defensive.

Post revolution, Iran refused to develop nuclear arms, Khomeni called them an affront to God. Only after the US backed invasion by Iraq did the Iranians decide that they needed a nuclear deterrent.

So, yeah, you don't want countries developing nuclear weapons then stop getting your proxy states to attack them.

/Or you could just continue whining on Fark.

Argh2: SupremeLeader:
And to be honest, if you were in charge of a country in the Middle East, you'd want nukes, especially if you wanted to stop any direct "reform attempts" from the US.

This. It's pretty obvious from the way we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear states that a nuke can have serious advantages for some countries. Unfortunately, saying to them "stop trying to develop deterrence or we'll bomb you" just isn't working, for some reason.

because we haven't bombed them yet.

SherKhan: Quadrotriticale

Wheat. So what?

What Israel does best? You mean sit back and let the US do the hard work while they use our money to buy top of the line equipment to fight people lucky to get their hands on Soviet weapons?

/Sorry, couldn't resist.

That would do wonders to push the idea in Iran that they need nuclear weapons.

Argh2: It's pretty obvious from the way we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear states that a nuke can have serious advantages for some countries.

Iran should just ask Pakistan or India how having a nuke opens them up to all sorts of pressure from the US on non-proliferation issues and theatre security. Not to mention sanctions and reprisals. Forget foreign aid and military assistance.

Oh, wait, never mind.

Wow, Khatami just called the Iranian elections a "Coup" and Bolton is screaming for Israel to start bombing? What an idiot. Israel is going to do what it needs to do for their own protection, but to have Bolton actively calling for it is disgraceful. Bombing Iran is the last thing we should want to see; sure it won't alienate us as much as many would like to think but it sure as hell won't buy us any new friends either.

Sit down Bolton and let the Iranians have a crack at this, they're not defeated yet numbskull.

RemyDuron: What Israel does best? You mean sit back and let the US do the hard work while they use our money to buy top of the line equipment to fight people lucky to get their hands on Soviet weapons?

/Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hear, hear!

How about:
Instigate a DDoS attack? A propagandic twitter campaign?

No, no, absolutely not, doing that would be a catastrophe, it would kill the current revolution, would push back any possible other revolution by 20, would create a national resolve to get nukes and would cool down any positive attitude toward the West and especially Israel that currently exists within young iranians.

So no, definitely not.

kramers_hair: So, yeah, you don't want countries developing nuclear weapons then stop getting your proxy states to attack them.

it doesn't work that way.

i'm just glad that you're not in charge of anything. except maybe mom's basement.

Tatsuma: No, no, absolutely not, doing that would be a catastrophe, it would kill the current revolution, would push back any possible other revolution by 20, would create a national resolve to get nukes and would cool down any positive attitude toward the West and especially Israel that currently exists within young iranians.

So no, definitely not.

bolton's position is that the revolution has either failed, or it won't be successful in the time period that iran needs to finish its nuclear weapons program.

Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

FTFA: Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

Deja Vu.

Thunderpipes: They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

Israel has to bomb Iran because of FARKERS????

Dude, it's way too early to be that drunk already.

CanisNoir: Wow, Khatami just called the Iranian elections a "Coup" and Bolton is screaming for Israel to start bombing? What an idiot. Israel is going to do what it needs to do for their own protection, but to have Bolton actively calling for it is disgraceful. Bombing Iran is the last thing we should want to see; sure it won't alienate us as much as many would like to think but it sure as hell won't buy us any new friends either.

Sit down Bolton and let the Iranians have a crack at this, they're not defeated yet numbskull.

What is it with you lately? You keep saying rational things. While I still often disagree with you, more and more lately it is evident that you have actually put a lot of thought into what you say.

Well, good. I don't care whether people are liberal or conservative, as long as they can defend their beliefs with facts and informed commentary, and are open to changing their views as their knowledge and experience expands.

Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

But that's not Israel's position, is it Tats? In fact, things have pretty much turned out has you they have hoped since BEFORE the election:

1. Ahmadinejad won, just as you Israel wanted

2. Massive protests arose disputing the outcome, much to your Israel's delight

3. Predictably, the Iranian government cracked down on the protesters (though probably not as heavily as you the Israelis would have liked

4. Decent people everywhere stood shocked, and Western hatred for the Iranian regime grew by bounds, just as you Israel had hoped

5. The protests died down (though probably too soon and with too little blood being shed for your Israel's liking)

6. Both the public and politicos in the West have become increasingly warm to the idea of bombing the Sheites out of Iran, just as YOU AND the Israelis have wanted for years.

You know damn well that the Israeli position is that if Mousavi or another moderate were to take power, it would hinder their interests, as it would weaken Western resolve to attack Iran.

Yet here you are saying "no no no no".

C'mon, Tats. What are you going to tell us next? That you've converted to "xianity"?

Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

Mousavi supports the atomic program.

If it's truly a "existential threat" even a perfectly successful revolution wouldn't matter.

Show some respect for Bolton or his moustache will eat your beard.

/Obscure? Probably not.

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

Mousavi supports the atomic program.

If it's truly a "existential threat" even a perfectly successful revolution wouldn't matter.

I'd be much more comfortable with a democratic Iran having nuclear weapons than one controlled by the Supreme Leader. Sure, I think, either way, the idea of them nuking Israel in some sort of country to country suicide bombing is highly unlikely. But it's way, way more unlikely if the guy in charge won a popular election, people don't usually like electing people who are likely to get everyone killed.

A bit late to the thread (is there any popcorn left?) but here goes...

Ponder this: What would cause the smallest regional war? Israel taking out Iran or the US doing it? Israel has no incentive to not level Iran. We at least take care to try to only kill the guys with guns.

Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

doesn't he still support a nuke program as a defense against an Israeli attack on his homeland?

3 words
Lend Lease Program



You can get some things with a kind word.

...but you can get more with a kind word and a B-2

Sygerrik: Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

More to wit, Reagan sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq at that time, hoping that years of conflict between them would keep the oil-rich region from being unified (under Shia leadership of some sort presumably).

Smeggy Smurf: What would cause the smallest regional war? Israel taking out Iran or the US doing it? Israel has no incentive to not level Iran. We at least take care to try to only kill the guys with guns.

Cool. And what's the acceptable level of carnage to inflict on the Iranians? 300,000 dead? 600,000 limbs blown off? How about 25,000 children pounded into bloody chunks by missiles?

How about 50,000 dead Nedas? 100,000? 150,000 bleeding to death in the streets, blinking up at cameras?

How many Iranians do you have to murder (or have the Israelis do it) because those uppity Iranians simmer the fark down and elect a pro-US government anyway?

Oh and the incentive to not take out Iran is called basic human morality. Look it up.

Lawnchair: Sygerrik: Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

More to wit, Reagan sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq at that time, hoping that years of conflict between them would keep the oil-rich region from being unified (under Shia leadership of some sort presumably).

Yeah, but that's a little tangent to my point, to wit: my suggestion that we arm all the Arab states to match Israel is by no means unprecedented. If AIPAC gets mad about it, I encourage them to take up arms to defend Israel. It's fair to be able to defend what you think is yours, and I think we should level the playing field to allow both sides to do that. Our only mistake is taking sides.

How much carnage and suffering and misery do you have to inflict on a population until they realize you are massacring them because you want them to be more friendly and compliant and elect someone who will favour YOUR country instead of their own.

Oh wait, ask the Palestinians.

Bargain?

Smeggy Smurf: A bit late to the thread (is there any popcorn left?) but here goes...

Ponder this: What would cause the smallest regional war? Israel taking out Iran or the US doing it? Israel has no incentive to not level Iran. We at least take care to try to only kill the guys with guns.

If your "we" is Israel, then not really--ask her (new window) about that.

Edsel: Things would have been different if only people had followed the posting rules instead of just posting all willy-nilly all over the place.

I tried to warn 'um I did...Tatsuma must Weeners or the revolution will fail. But they...they wouldn't listen...

...they wouldn't listen

Spanky_McFarksalot: Tatsuma must Weeners

actually, it still works...

Sygerrik: Lawnchair: Sygerrik: Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

More to wit, Reagan sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq at that time, hoping that years of conflict between them would keep the oil-rich region from being unified (under Shia leadership of some sort presumably).

Yeah, but that's a little tangent to my point, to wit: my suggestion that we arm all the Arab states to match Israel is by no means unprecedented. If AIPAC gets mad about it, I encourage them to take up arms to defend Israel. It's fair to be able to defend what you think is yours, and I think we should level the playing field to allow both sides to do that. Our only mistake is taking sides.

Russia and China would just sell more to Israel, and in any case Israel isn't the powerhouse it was a few decades ago. Iran and Egypt are much stronger, and Iran has mastered assymetrical warfare with Hezbollah.

Oh and by the way, anyone who thinks Iran ain't building the bomb needs to hop off the unicorn.

Ah, John Bolton the suck-up, kick-down backdoor appointee Ambassador imposed upon us by W.

/STFU and crawl back under your rock Bolton!

Jewbag
I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

Yeah, totally. Those wars worked out great for Israel.

/oh, wait...

mrexcess: Jewbag
I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

Yeah, totally. Those wars worked out great for Israel.

/oh, wait...

Uh yeah, well Israel's still standing isn't it? So I guess your "oh, wait" attempt at being funny fails.

DFWPhotoGuy: I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

That fat fark couldn't muster the strength to get to the coke machine.

A couple of quick points, which I tried to make during the revolution threads but which were drowned out as trolling by the mob

First, some people are asking "what happens next if the Iranian regime holds power?" Well, one thing on the horizon is the completion of the current five-year Iranian economic plan. In a way similar to China, Iran has these economic plans. The current one ends next year - and presumably another will start. Now, the Iranian regime makes a lot of noise announcing the ambitions of the plans ... and now all of that is just waiting to bite them. The state of the Iranian economy - technically it is what is known as "in the shiatter, and likely to stay there" - means that this period will be hugely problematic for the regime. The economy was a big factor driving the recent unrest. Sure, we can say it was about better human rights, a desire for the rule of law and democracy, etc ... but if the economy was bouncing along would it have happened? Impossible to say, of course, but the very fact that it can't be said highlights the point. Now China largely meets its economic targets, or manages to make it look like it meets them; Iran is nowhere near being able to do either.

Second, regarding the nuclear question. Iran probably* (it can be argued that it doesn't, but it seems to me that it does. Despite its position in the oil-rich Middle East, Iran is faced with a coming energy crisis that will likely accentuate the current economic crisis) needs nuclear energy. It seems to be the most realistic option to its energy problems, anyway. In fact, a cornerstone of the current economic plan I just mentioned was nuclear energy. So, it must be understood that "taking out the nuclear research" is going to fark that up. Are the Iranian people going to welcome that? Difficult to say. Unlikely, of course, and they probably will not until the energy problem is solved

Third, regarding the influence of the Iranian regime. The regime controls a huge percentage of resources and industry. Obviously other powerful people want to control these things, and also the people want to control them. Ahmadinejad actually promised the latter, and this is still a major selling point of the regime to its followers. But, because they've effectively mismanaged the economy, the variables of which they control to a significant degree, the control is open to question. However, this does then tie in to the result of a strike against the regime - would they sabotage what they control? It's certainly possible

One further point worth making is the influence of China and Russia. Again, I tried repeatedly to raise this issue in the Iran threads, only to be told by the mob that I had failed to contribute even one worthy post. They are surely factors. Now they support the current regime. As such, I would hope that the internally-led overthrow of that regime would lead to a cooling of those dynamics. But, a strike by Israel or the US on the nuclear facilities, I believe, has the potential to be seen as being against the Iranian people, for the reasons mentioned above, and would potentially reduce anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiment.

Anyway ... Most of the above should probably be a starting point for any discussion about Iran and is pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately it got lost before in all the concern for the pks and ogs and all the awe that our brave fark revolutionaries inspired in themselves. Still, such is life :)

Oh, I guess lastly the thing to remember about Bolton, and those like him, is that he is essentially in a no-lose situation. He calles for military action. If at some future time military action is felt necessary he can say "I told you so and if you had done it sooner you would have benefited" (which is of course not necessarily true), and if at some future time military action is felt to be even more unnecessary Bolton can say "you were lucky, my plan would have been safer" (again not necessarily true). I think he is a nutcase, plain and simple, but hawks, if they are clever, can quite easily make careers for themselves. Of course, another possibility is the Iraq scenario. Neocons trumpet about cakewalks and being greeted as liberators. When that turns out to be totally untrue they first pretend it is true, then when the pretense can be sustained no longer, state their plan wasn't followed and other people made mistakes! Where did the cakewalk go? Who knows! Again, that's life :)

mrexcess: Jewbag
I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

Yeah, totally. Those wars worked out great for Israel.

/oh, wait...

. . .

Yeah, they did go well for Israel. Israel gained land.

Oh hey, lets crush the green shoots of democracy under the boot heal of saber rattling and penis waving in order to further de-stablize the region and spur another half century of roiling anti-semitism!

Heck of an idea!

Sygerrik: Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.


Couldn't leave this one alone. The thing is...
While I am well aware of the connotations and etymology of the term "Anti-Semitism" the fact remains that regardless of what it has come to mean, the words do mean something on their own, and the fact that Anti-Semitism is a barb thrown out by a group intent on oppressing a large number of Semitic people.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to redefine the word, merely stating that someone accusing me of racial bias in my argument is doing so in the service of a state where racial bias is ingrained into the culture, yet does not see the irony of it. Just like how the term "Anti-Semitic," when used to describe non-Jew-hating opponents of Israel, carries with it a special brand of irony.

Regardless, your arguments stating that a strike against Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would lead the population to topple Ahmadinejad is patently dishonest. They would rally behind the Persian state, not any particular leader. It would also either shut up moderate Ayatollahs like Montazeri and Rafsanjani or force them to toe the line with the Supreme Leader, setting back the cause of liberalism in Iran decades.


Does this guy edit your dictionary?



The word was coined with a specific meaning. It kept the meaning despite the recent attempt of propogandists top change it to cover themselves against fairly legit charges.

As for the idea that a Tzalhal strike will auctomatically and permanently increase the mullah's property, go sing that ditty to Leopoldo Galtieri. The Iranian government rules only by the fear of its thugs (including a cadre of Palestinains). Additionally, hostility to Israel is highly identified with Ahmadinejad. Protesters were specifically referring to it. An attack on Iranian nuke facilities will make him look weak and foolish. This may increase the likelyhood of the regime's collapse.



In conclusion, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

You wrote that load of wharrgarbl and say I should feel bad? From my, admittedly biased, persepctive you are wading in fail.

colon_pow sounds like a coward with the crap he posts.

Sarah Palin: One further point worth making is the influence of China and Russia. Again, I tried repeatedly to raise this issue in the Iran threads, only to be told by the mob that I had failed to contribute even one worthy post. They are surely factors. Now they support the current regime. As such, I would hope that the internally-led overthrow of that regime would lead to a cooling of those dynamics. But, a strike by Israel or the US on the nuclear facilities, I believe, has the potential to be seen as being against the Iranian people, for the reasons mentioned above, and would potentially reduce anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiment.


Either of which could simply hand Iran the bomb.

I too tried to raise the spectre of Russia, in particular, when the Iran Elections threads were in full swing. It was like talking to children. Our leaders are talking Realpolitik in the back room, while the masses screech about the last bumper sticker slogan they were fed.

Why so many Americans are willing to subrogate critical thinking to the corporate Media (and worse - anonymous people and groups on the net) is beyond me. I had some hope that the rape of the Treaasury and Wall St. would wake some folks up, it doesn't seem to have done much.

Sadly, people will only open their eyes when they are reduced to eating the leather seats out of their fuel-less Lexuses.

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.


Couldn't leave this one alone. The thing is...
While I am well aware of the connotations and etymology of the term "Anti-Semitism" the fact remains that regardless of what it has come to mean, the words do mean something on their own, and the fact that Anti-Semitism is a barb thrown out by a group intent on oppressing a large number of Semitic people.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to redefine the word, merely stating that someone accusing me of racial bias in my argument is doing so in the service of a state where racial bias is ingrained into the culture, yet does not see the irony of it. Just like how the term "Anti-Semitic," when used to describe non-Jew-hating opponents of Israel, carries with it a special brand of irony.

Regardless, your arguments stating that a strike against Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would lead the population to topple Ahmadinejad is patently dishonest. They would rally behind the Persian state, not any particular leader. It would also either shut up moderate Ayatollahs like Montazeri and Rafsanjani or force them to toe the line with the Supreme Leader, setting back the cause of liberalism in Iran decades.


Does this guy edit your dictionary?



The word was coined with a specific meaning. It kept the meaning despite the recent attempt of propogandists top change it to cover themselves against fairly legit charges.

As for the idea that a Tzalhal strike will auctomatically and permanently increase the mullah's property, go sing that ditty to Leopoldo Galtieri. The Iranian government rules only by the fear of its thugs (including a cadre of Palestinains). Additionally, hostility to Israel is highly identified with Ahmadinejad. Protesters were specifically referring to it. An attack on Iranian nuke facilities will make him look weak and foolish. This may increase the likelyhood of the regime's collapse.



In conclusion, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

You wrote that load of wharrgarbl and say I should feel bad? From my, admittedly biased, persepctive you are wading in fail.

Question: are you illiterate or merely blind?

I made two points in my post: first, that my use of Anti-Semitic to describe the fairly obvious bias against the Arabs that is endemic to supporters of Israel is intended to illuminate that bias, not redefine a word; second, that an attack by Israel on Iran would be counterproductive. You didn't address my first point, only resorting to a rather tangential image, but since there really isn't any possible rebuttal to it that wouldn't make you look like an even bigger idiot than you already are. Fair enough, the fifth amendment extends to the Internet as well.

But as for your second point-- you ignored what I wrote and continue to labor under serious misapprehensions about Iran's culture and political system. First of all, you continue to see Ahmadinezhad as the leader of the nation, not Khamenei.

Second, you seem to have been living under a goddamn stone for the past month. Ahmadinezhad is as unpopular as anyone has ever been. It doesn't matter. You saw what happened when the Iranian people attempted to rise against their government. The only way that regime change will occur in Iran is if the army sides with Montazeri against the Guardian Council. The military leaders are ultimately faithful to the ideals of the nation and the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and an outside attack would only galvanize them to the defend their nation. It would unite them against their external foe, and Khamenei could easily use this as an excuse to exercise his power.

Your ability to cite history is slightly less pathetic than the rest of what I would charitably call your "argument," but comparing the situation in Iran to Galtiera is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. The PRN voluntarily relinquished power after being thrashed by the British army. On the other hand, the army of Iran-- the army that would be the target of the Israelis-- is actually a moderate force, and is not involved in the Ayatollah's holding onto his power. That is enforced by the Basij, a civilian force that Israel could not hammer as decisively as the army.

While it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty the result of any military action, the fact that the Iranian Army is not key in supporting the Iranian regime, coupled with strong Persian national pride, leads any reasonable observer to conclude firstly that Israel striking Iran would be an incredibly foolish decision and secondly that you are a massive, massive tool.

When the real truth scares you to death, just pretend it's ideological lunacy, hide in yer basements, and pat yer selfs on the back at just how brilliant and smart your position is!

When WW 3 begins you can claim to be gay to avoid internment!

Sygerrik: I made two points in my post: first, that my use of Anti-Semitic to describe the fairly obvious bias against the Arabs that is endemic to supporters of Israel is intended to illuminate that bias, not redefine a word; second, that an attack by Israel on Iran would be counterproductive. You didn't address my first point, only resorting to a rather tangential image, but since there really isn't any possible rebuttal to it that wouldn't make you look like an even bigger idiot than you already are. Fair enough, the fifth amendment extends to the Internet as well.

But as for your second point-- you ignored what I wrote and continue to labor under serious misapprehensions about Iran's culture and political system. First of all, you continue to see Ahmadinezhad as the leader of the nation, not Khamenei.

Second, you seem to have been living under a goddamn stone for the past month. Ahmadinezhad is as unpopular as anyone has ever been. It doesn't matter. You saw what happened when the Iranian people attempted to rise against their government. The only way that regime change will occur in Iran is if the army sides with Montazeri against the Guardian Council. The military leaders are ultimately faithful to the ideals of the nation and the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and an outside attack would only galvanize them to the defend their nation. It would unite them against their external foe, and Khamenei could easily use this as an excuse to exercise his power.

Your ability to cite history is slightly less pathetic than the rest of what I would charitably call your "argument," but comparing the situation in Iran to Galtiera is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. The PRN voluntarily relinquished power after being thrashed by the British army. On the other hand, the army of Iran-- the army that would be the target of the Israelis-- is actually a moderate force, and is not involved in the Ayatollah's holding onto his power. That is enforced by the Basij, a civilian force that Israel could not hammer as decisively as the army.

While it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty the result of any military action, the fact that the Iranian Army is not key in supporting the Iranian regime, coupled with strong Persian national pride, leads any reasonable observer to conclude firstly that Israel striking Iran would be an incredibly foolish decision and secondly that you are a massive, massive tool.

1) I think you mean the First Amendment. You may consider using the Fifth though.

2) Obviously the Teniel joke went WAY over your head.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
You may have a personal definition of anti-Semitism. The fact that it is nt the actual definition of the word is something that will be pointed out.

3) I know Ahemidijahad is not the de facto ruler, but he is their chosen mouthpiece. Then ask yourself in an election where the only canditates were hand picked by the Mullahs, did they rig the elcetion specifically for this guy?
They're afraid of any reform, no matter how modest. This makes Ahemidijahad their stand in. By investing so much in him, the catspaw becomes the lynchpin.

4) The anti-government movement has, contrary to all report, not been crushed. It is just starting. It took over a year of protests to depose the Shah and he had a good economy. IN Iran inflation and unemployment are high and the anger is growing. the regime's hold grows shakier. (Consider Sharanksy's anaolgy in 'The Case for Democracy' of the gaurd who must always hold his rifle up.) A visible show of weakness can help topple the regime. Again, I point to Farkouk as well as the post 48 coup in Iraq that topled their monarchy.

5) You talk of Persian pride, but you forget the anti-Arab strain that resides within their nationalism. With Hizboullah supplanting government forces will not add to the affection already felt.

6) Arguementum ad hominem may make you feel like you're telling someone, but it, shall we say, tells everyone...