Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/19/07 07:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I love it how your only tactic you can ever use is to use personal attacks.

That was just a precursor

First of all, I'm sure you can't provide a link to document that...

But never mind the fact that multiple countries were supplying Iraq to the best of their ability, the US wasn't the only country to give Iraq material for chemical/biological weapons.

OMG! Cellardoor6 admitting the US isnt perfect.(but trying to lessen the admission byinvolving other countries) Ill faint when Ive finished this post!

And the only reason Canada only gave what it did is because Canada doesn't exactly have the capability to give much more aide than that, or the political inclination. However, the DECISION to aid Iraq was the same in Canada as it was in the US.

I love how your only way of defending your country's actions consists of "well, we did it only a little bit."

So you DO think that aiding bio and chem warfare programs is on a level pegging then. No surprise.

Blah blah blah liberal hysteria.

Blah blah blah blinkered ultra-patriotism

The difference is, Iran has the luxury of seeing like the victim here. If the US attacked Iran for what it is doing, or worked against them by other means, YOU and other people who have your wacky, tainted mindset would be screaming bloody murder.

No, if the US attacked Iran, it would be seen as another attempt at warmongering by a power (and prehaps attention) hungry country. Not saying I see it like that, just guessing as to how it would be construed

So Iran can arm our enemies, but we can't do anything about it or even complain about it because "what goes around comes around."

Ooo, using another words to an ironic end. Your so witty. I think Ill ignore your skewed politics seeing as how you entertain me so.

At 4/19/07 07:43 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 4/19/07 07:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: First of all, I'm sure you can't provide a link to document that...

But never mind the fact that multiple countries were supplying Iraq to the best of their ability, the US wasn't the only country to give Iraq material for chemical/biological weapons.

OMG! Cellardoor6 admitting the US isnt perfect.(but trying to lessen the admission byinvolving other countries) Ill faint when Ive finished this post!

Actually I didn't concede anything.

The US did what it had to do. Iran was seen as a bigger threat by basically everyone in the world, therefore the lesser evil at the time (Iraq) was strengthened by the west in order to contain what was seen as expansion of Iran's Islamic Revolution.

The US is criticized for aiding Iraq by people whose countries...get this... aided Iraq as well!

Typical example of the total and utter mental deficiency that is anti-Americanism, regarldess of the degree. Someone from France, the UK, Canada, etc.. will be entirely unaware that their own countries aided Saddam Hussein, they intentionally ignore their own history to find their countries blameless in an aspect that they attack the US for.

The US is your scapegoat, you benefit from what the US does, but when you find it morally questionable and want to salvage your national pride, you immediately ignore your own country's faults and its own history, and overemphasize what the US did.

Your views, bcdemons views, and JoS's views are not just political bias, it's a fucking mental problem.

And the only reason Canada only gave what it did is because Canada doesn't exactly have the capability to give much more aide than that, or the political inclination. However, the DECISION to aid Iraq was the same in Canada as it was in the US.

I love how your only way of defending your country's actions consists of "well, we did it only a little bit."

So you DO think that aiding bio and chem warfare programs is on a level pegging then. No surprise.

Well considering Canada didn't have the ABILITY or technology to aid Iraq with chemical weapons...

The contribution of countries was pretty relative to their ABILITY to contribute to Iraq's war effort against Iran. Therefore when people criticize the Us for giving aid to Iraq, it is ridiculous to emphasize the fact that they aided Iraq to a smaller degree.

Canada and other western countries lacked the economic, political, logistical, and technological wherewithal to aid Iraq to the degree that the US did. That is the only way they can salvage their otherwise un-salvageable view in this matter, they pretend that their country can't be held to the same standard that the US is. They think that just because they supported terrorists and dictators to a lesser degree, that someone they are blameless.

The difference is, Iran has the luxury of seeing like the victim here. If the US attacked Iran for what it is doing, or worked against them by other means, YOU and other people who have your wacky, tainted mindset would be screaming bloody murder.

No, if the US attacked Iran, it would be seen as another attempt at warmongering by a power (and prehaps attention) hungry country.

See how that works? Americans can't be concerned about Iran arming our enemies, and we certainly can't prevent them from doing so because we'll just be "warmongering".

See how that works? Iran has the luxury of fighting us under the table and covertly, but we can't do anything about it or we'll anger the completely delusional liberals and brainwashed Middle Easterners who don't understand the full context of the issue.

Iran has the luxury of arming our enemies and using them as proxies to divert attention, blame, and retribution to others for their attacks against the US. All while we have our hands tied behind our backs politically because a few delusional fuckwits from our allied nations try desperately to maintain their inferiority complex against the US at all costs, event the costs of their own sanity.

So anything we do will be seen as the aggression in the eyes of the fucking morons of this world.

At 4/19/07 08:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The US is your scapegoat, you benefit from what the US does, but when you find it morally questionable and want to salvage your national pride, you immediately ignore your own country's faults and its own history, and overemphasize what the US did.

I cant believe the rhetoric you spew forth disguised as sensible arguments. You contradict yourself so many times thoughout the BBS! Overemphasising the US seems to be what you do best, but here you portray it as a bad thing!

So anything we do will be seen as the aggression in the eyes of the fucking morons of this world.

And who's fault is that? You fought a war for oil and tried to give it the moral high ground with the cry of WMDs.

Plus, you put down others for personal slander, then call everyone who disagrees with you a fucking moron.

Dont pick on the word "everyone" in your reply, I want to know how you can justify that phrase Ive quoted without being a hypocrite.

At 4/19/07 08:21 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 4/19/07 08:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The US is your scapegoat, you benefit from what the US does, but when you find it morally questionable and want to salvage your national pride, you immediately ignore your own country's faults and its own history, and overemphasize what the US did.

I cant believe the rhetoric you spew forth disguised as sensible arguments. You contradict yourself so many times thoughout the BBS! Overemphasising the US seems to be what you do best, but here you portray it as a bad thing!

You're delusional... I don't contradict myself. I actually base my views on facts, you base your views by ignoring the facts and overemphasizing others. You don't actually have the desire to find out the truth or base your views on the facts.

The only way to explain your behavior is that you have a predetermined goal of bashing the US because your real goal is anti-US in nature, not anti-chemical weapons, anti-terrorism, or anti-war even. You only want to discredit the US, you have no desire to see reality.

So anything we do will be seen as the aggression in the eyes of the fucking morons of this world.

And who's fault is that? You fought a war for oil and tried to give it the moral high ground with the cry of WMDs.

First of all, I don't think it was a war for oil.

Secondly, YOUR COUNTRY FOUGHT IN IRAQ AS WELL!!!

See how your mind works? This further validates your anti-US mental deficiency. Your country does the exact same thing the US does, but you still find a way to blame it all on the US if you disagree with the deed.

Get a glimpse of reality. Your anti-US bias in this issue is entirely hypocritical. Your entire political philosophy is an oxymoron. Your desperate attempt to discredit all things the US does actually causes you ignore reality.

At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You're delusional... I don't contradict myself. I actually base my views on facts, you base your views by ignoring the facts and overemphasizing others. You don't actually have the desire to find out the truth or base your views on the facts.

Hmm, the way you contradict my accusations of hypocracy and contradiction is to simply state you dont. Nice move. Are you running for office at all?

The only way to explain your behavior is that you have a predetermined goal of bashing the US because your real goal is anti-US in nature, not anti-chemical weapons, anti-terrorism, or anti-war even. You only want to discredit the US, you have no desire to see reality.

The only goal I have is to have a good argument. If that includes dicrediting you before you infect other BBS posters with your skewed, blinkered logic then its just a bonus :D

PS, My behaviour can also be explained by the fact that I dont like you much, but I wont say thats the official verdict.

First of all, I don't think it was a war for oil.

Yuh, thats your blinkers at work again.

Secondly, YOUR COUNTRY FOUGHT IN IRAQ AS WELL!!!

Yeah, and I think Labour is likely to be ousted as a result. The difference between us is that I accept my country went into Iraq, and advocate support for the troops. I do not however advocate the war. Subtle difference that gets trampled by your level of "patriotism"

See how your mind works? This further validates your anti-US mental deficiency. Your country does the exact same thing the US does, but you still find a way to blame it all on the US if you disagree with the deed.

NO, my above point explains it. I dont hate the US for it. I disagree with the war as many in the US would, but I tihnk that the troops sent inot (very) hostile territory need backing. Theyve been sent to do a job, however the decision was arrived at, so get behind them.

Get a glimpse of reality. Your anti-US bias in this issue is entirely hypocritical. Your entire political philosophy is an oxymoron. Your desperate attempt to discredit all things the US does actually causes you ignore reality.

Even IF (keyword IF) I was anti US, I would still not be a hypocrite. I dont bash the US, I bash you. Not for the sake of it, but because you have a horrible skewed outlook on things and I really cant just suffer it in silence.

Fact is im not anti US so in the words of my 9 year old self Nyah Nyah!!

At 4/18/07 05:38 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 4/18/07 05:23 AM, fli wrote: "OH YEAH! We'll, we got bigger dicks!"

And of course if we elect Hillary, she'll have to arm us twice as heavily to impress them, since she doesn't have a dick to wave.

Bill can wave his for her.

At 4/19/07 08:55 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

The only way to explain your behavior is that you have a predetermined goal of bashing the US because your real goal is anti-US in nature, not anti-chemical weapons, anti-terrorism, or anti-war even. You only want to discredit the US, you have no desire to see reality.

The only goal I have is to have a good argument. If that includes dicrediting you before you infect other BBS posters with your skewed, blinkered logic then its just a bonus :D

You can't discredit me, you've just proven how utterly hypocritical your views are. My logic is based on just that, logic and facts. Your views are based on your semi-conscious desire to attack the US in every aspect.

PS, My behaviour can also be explained by the fact that I dont like you much, but I wont say thats the official verdict.

So you don't like someone personally to the point that you intentionally distort reality and history.

Love it.

First of all, I don't think it was a war for oil.

Yuh, thats your blinkers at work again.

And the reason you think it was for oil is because you don't know the facts. Once again, you distort reality itself to further your anti-US views. Never mind the fact that oil has actually become more scarce for the US since the invasion of Iraq, oil and gas prices have gone up, and the proceeds from Iraq's oil money is being entirely distributed inside of their own country, thus entirely negating your "war for oil" conspiracy. The US doesn't even control Iraq's oil, the US doesn't even distribute Iraq's oil. In fact, everyone in the world has the same exact access to iraq oil as the US does, including your country, even including France, Germany.. etc.

Iraq's oil is being sold openly on the world market to the highest bidder, the US is getting more oil from fucking Venezuela... what good did invading Iraq do if we wanted oil? Furthermore, what good is staying in Iraq doing if we went in for oil since we aren't getting any from them to even offset our energy consumption due to BEING THERE?

Secondly, YOUR COUNTRY FOUGHT IN IRAQ AS WELL!!!

Yeah, and I think Labour is likely to be ousted as a result. The difference between us is that I accept my country went into Iraq, and advocate support for the troops. I do not however advocate the war. Subtle difference that gets trampled by your level of "patriotism"

Are you fucking serious... See how you continue to salvage your national pride by desperately finding some way of scrutinizing the facts.

You attacked my country for a 'war for oil" you said this was why America can only be seen as the bad guy with Iran (paraphrasing). This stemmed from your allusion to the fact that an American being concerned about Iran arming our enemies is unjustified.

But you ignored the fact that YOUR country fought in Iraq, is still in Iraq, is in Afghanistan as well. But then when it becomes part of the issue, you pretend that all of a sudden this issue is about our differing levels of patriotism and our personal view of the war.

Your anti-US views seriously cloud your judgment to the point that you brain doesn't even function correctly.

If you really were even slightly rational in how you perceive things, you would have the same distaste for Us foreign policy as you do for own country's foreign policy. BUt of course you don't, because seeing things objectively isn't your goal, simply bashing the US to further your anti-Us mental deficiency is your goal.

Im sure everone on this thread is getting tired of cellardoor calling me anti-American and me calling him arrogant, so I'll stop posting here and let you get back to debating Iran's involvement with the Taliban.

Apologies and thanks for the use of space guys and gals.

Anyone whos interested, he's bashing me on __is better than America as well.

At 4/19/07 09:40 PM, Boltrig wrote:
Anyone whos interested, he's bashing me on __is better than America as well.

I love it. Once it becomes apparent that you entirely lost your whole basis of argument you retreat and try to pretend that you're taking the high road

You're a joke.

At 4/19/07 08:21 PM, Boltrig wrote: And who's fault is that? You fought a war for oil and tried to give it the moral high ground with the cry of WMDs.

Only biased loons claim the war was fought for oil. They are no better than people that believe Bush caused 9/11, and their intellectual laziness and sloppiless makes me sick.

Cellardoor, by your logic of how Canada sold helicopters to Iraq constitutes military aid, the US also recieves military aid from Canada. We sell you shit all the time, so by this logic the US is a reciepant of aid. How does it feel being the worlds only superpower, but still relying or military aid from Canada?

Also, was it okay for the US (morally and legally) to give Iraq chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, since you said there was no agreement against their usage according to you. I mean you even put it in capitals so I would not miss it.

Your pro-American bias is so big that it blinds you. ratehr thana ddress arguements people put forth you decided to go off on a tangent and attack the countries the user come from. Rather than directly addressing the fact you provided weapons to Iraq, you instead bring up how other countries did it too so that makes it okay. When you make a thread about Iran arming the US's enemies, why do you bring up Canada, Russia and France? Oh yeah, because you think if you make a big enough stink over there you wont have to address the actions of your country. You would make a great magician, but you shoudl probally start thinking about asking your school for a refund because they clearly arent teaching you much.

Jos, you say Pro-American bias, but your bias against america is so huge its not even funny. Canada, like all other places, has some miltary trade with the US, but the US produces far more then Canada. Its like taking a fruit. Canada exports some fruit, but the Country that gets it does not rely on Canada for fruit, just gets a small portion of fruit from canada.

At 4/19/07 10:27 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/19/07 09:40 PM, Boltrig wrote:
Anyone whos interested, he's bashing me on __is better than America as well.

I love it. Once it becomes apparent that you entirely lost your whole basis of argument you retreat and try to pretend that you're taking the high road

You're a joke.

No, I just object wit having to deal with you in two places. If I wanted to skulk off, I wouldnt have highlighted the other thread.

Now wait for him to come in with his ultimate desire to have last word

At 4/19/07 10:34 PM, JoS wrote: Cellardoor, by your logic of how Canada sold helicopters to Iraq constitutes military aid, the US also recieves military aid from Canada. We sell you shit all the time, so by this logic the US is a reciepant of aid. How does it feel being the worlds only superpower, but still relying or military aid from Canada?

Now you're twisting the facts. The US doesn't rely on aid from Canada. The US only has cooperation with some military companies where Canadians are employed, or some Canadian-based military companies.

Iraq relied on outside help. The issue here is the intent to support a dictator, Canada supported a dictator just like the US did. Thus making the argument by you that US can't criticize Iran for giving our enemies weapons is ridiculous, because many country that I'm sure are immune to your criticism, did the same thing, including your country.

Your pro-American bias is so big that it blinds you. ratehr thana ddress arguements people put forth you decided to go off on a tangent and attack the countries the user come from.

JoS, that is ALL you do. Your whole basis for criticising my concern for Irans support for our enemies was that "your country gave their weapons enemies".

And since you criticized the US solely for doing so, I acknowledged that many countries, including yours, gave assistance to Iraq as well, yet I'm damn sure that if tommorow Canadians were killed by a bomb that was traceable to Iran, you'd be concerned about it.

Rather than directly addressing the fact you provided weapons to Iraq, you instead bring up how other countries did it too so that makes it okay.

No, I even said that I thought it was okay that the US gave Iraq military assistance at the time. I didn't use the fact that other countries did it as well as justification. I used the fact that YOUR country did it to show that you're holding America to a standard that you don't hold other countries to.

I don't agree that chemical weapons should have been given to Iraq. But I do agree that the US (and Canada, France, Spain, Portugal etc..) were justified in motive of supporting Iraq against Iran.

I don't think that Canada made a wrong choice in giving Iraq helicopters, I just used the fact that since YOU think the US made a wrong choice for supporting Iraq, then you should acknowledge that YOUR country did it as well. Expecially in the context of using this bit of history to criticize me for being concerned about Iran giving weapons to our enemies.

When you make a thread about Iran arming the US's enemies, why do you bring up Canada, Russia and France?

Why did you bring up the US supporting Iraq 20 years ago?

I brought up the fact that Canada, the USSR, and France did it as well because YOU pretended that I had no right to be concerned just because my country helped Iran's enemies. Yet I'm fucking CERTAIN that you would never criticize anyone else from any other country if they had the same stake in Iraq and Afghanistan as the US does, and mentioned that Iran was supplying their enemies.

Get a glimpse of reality. Iran is my country's fucking enemy. My country is in Iraq and Afghanistan by the permission of both their governments and the UN. Iran is supplying world-wide condemned terrorist groups that target civilians, behead people, and fight against democratically elected governments that Us troops are fighting to protect.

Therefore I made it known. Then your idiotic response to this was basically "your country helped Iraq therefore you're a hypocrite for bringing this up." However YOUR country has supported enemies of your enemy as well, therefore you're ENTIRELY missing the mark and are just trying desparetely to discredt an American viewpoint, rather than see the whole context of the issue.

You basically suggested that the US can't work against Iran, but Iran can work against the US. If Americans try to address the fact that the Iranians are working against us, it's hypocritical to do so just because we worked against them 20 years ago, and now they can do what they do with impunity.

This isn't about your wacky fucking moral perception. Even if it was about morals, you're comparing supporting a military force vs. supporting a terrorist organization that beheads people for flying kites and drinking alcohol.

So both logically, and morally you're entire point is false, and the only possible fucking way you can think what you say makes sense is the fact that you have an irrational, preconceived notion that what the US does is wrong. Therefore you actually support Iran's support for terrorists in the process.

At 4/19/07 10:53 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now you're twisting the facts. The US doesn't rely on aid from Canada. The US only has cooperation with some military companies where Canadians are employed, or some Canadian-based military companies.

Aid and trade are not the same thing. we sold them 6 helicopter, that is trade. You gave them intelligence and chemical weapons, that is aid. Learn the difference. My comment was sarcasm, glad you picked up on it.

JoS, that is ALL you do. Your whole basis for criticising my concern for Irans support for our enemies was that "your country gave their weapons enemies".

You have taken my one sentence I posted and spun it so much with all your assumptions on how I think its not even close to what my arguement was.

And since you criticized the US solely for doing so, I acknowledged that many countries, including yours, gave assistance to Iraq as well, yet I'm damn sure that if tommorow Canadians were killed by a bomb that was traceable to Iran, you'd be concerned about it.

My point originally was neither criticism nor support, simply pointing out a fact. Does it concern me that Iran is giving weapons to people who use it to kill Canadians or or other poeple, sure it does, but it is their rigth as a state to do so.

No, I even said that I thought it was okay that the US gave Iraq military assistance at the time. I didn't use the fact that other countries did it as well as justification. I used the fact that YOUR country did it to show that you're holding America to a standard that you don't hold other countries to.

I don't understand how you draw that logic.

My question is so? Does iran not have the rigth to give weapons to whom ever they want, just like the US has the rigth to give weapons to whom ever they want? So what if they are arming our enemies, we are theirs...with chemical and biological weapons.

Please point to where in my original statement I said it was not okay for the US to try and do anything about htis. Point to where I criticize the US and praise Iran. tell me where I hold Iran to a different standard then I hold the US?

I am pretty fucking sure that all I did was point out Iran has the right to give weapons to whomever they please, just as you did. I actually even stated right in my fucking paragraph that the US has the rigth to give weapons to whoever they want. So shut the fuck up with your bullshit about how I don't think the US shoudl be able to do things but I defend iran for doing the same thing. I am getting sick of your bullshit.

One mroe thing, you need to learn some humility. When I make a mistake or am proven wrong I admit to it. I have challenged you to admit you are wrong several times on your statement that there was no laws banning the use of chemical weapons when I proved otherwise and each time you ignore it. You made a claim that the guns used in V Tech were probally illegal so gun control wouldn't make a difference. Rather than admit you were wrong you brush it off as a fluke.

At 4/19/07 11:32 PM, JoS wrote: My point originally was neither criticism nor support, simply pointing out a fact. Does it concern me that Iran is giving weapons to people who use it to kill Canadians or or other poeple, sure it does, but it is their rigth as a state to do so.

Iran does not have rights that they have forfeit in international agreements. No member country in the UN has a "right" to violate international law. You might believe that the US's past transgressions give them the right to retaliate, but I am sure that international law affords them no right like that.

At 4/19/07 11:57 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 4/19/07 11:32 PM, JoS wrote: My point originally was neither criticism nor support, simply pointing out a fact. Does it concern me that Iran is giving weapons to people who use it to kill Canadians or or other poeple, sure it does, but it is their rigth as a state to do so.

Iran does not have rights that they have forfeit in international agreements. No member country in the UN has a "right" to violate international law. You might believe that the US's past transgressions give them the right to retaliate, but I am sure that international law affords them no right like that.

Show me a link to this law you refer to. And just so you knw though, I believe the highest power is that state and that transnational bodies such as the UN are not to force sates to act in a certain way but ratehr as a forum for states to agree on stuff together.

At 4/20/07 01:02 AM, JoS wrote: Show me a link to this law you refer to.

The UN Charter says that no nation can take nonpeaceful action unless methods such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, etc. have been exhausted. Thus, if Iran is trying to overthrow the government of Afghanistan without trying any of those measures, then they are violating international law.

And just so you knw though, I believe the highest power is that state and that transnational bodies such as the UN are not to force sates to act in a certain way but ratehr as a forum for states to agree on stuff together.

The Security Council can call on nations to perform actions in the interest of peace and stability. If the nation does not comply, the Security Council has the power to enact resolutions, sanctions, and military responses with which other member nations are expected to comply under the UN Charter.

At 4/20/07 01:02 AM, JoS wrote: link

I forgot the actual link.

At 4/20/07 01:38 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 4/20/07 01:02 AM, JoS wrote: Show me a link to this law you refer to.

The UN Charter says that no nation can take nonpeaceful action unless methods such as negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, etc. have been exhausted. Thus, if Iran is trying to overthrow the government of Afghanistan without trying any of those measures, then they are violating international law.

Which Chapter and Article(s). I know it says you can only use force if you are attacked or it is authorized by the SC, but we are not talking about military engagement here. They are giving weapons to terrorists (or freedom fighters depending who you ask). This by no means of the imagination is the same thing as a military engagement.

The Security Council can call on nations to perform actions in the interest of peace and stability. If the nation does not comply, the Security Council has the power to enact resolutions, sanctions, and military responses with which other member nations are expected to comply under the UN Charter.

I am well aware of what the SC can and cannot do. Once again they can not enforce anything and must rely upon member states to enforce their decisions (ie to abide by the embargos, sanctions etc). The SC can say whatever it wants, but it is up to the member states to do it, or ignore it.

At 4/20/07 01:51 AM, JoS wrote: Which Chapter and Article(s). I know it says you can only use force if you are attacked or it is authorized by the SC, but we are not talking about military engagement here. They are giving weapons to terrorists (or freedom fighters depending who you ask). This by no means of the imagination is the same thing as a military engagement.

Chapter 6, Article 33

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

Iran cannot help the Taliban attack Afghani troops, police, and civilians or the multinational forces there without endangering international security and peace. There is no valid interpretation that allows them to do that.

I am well aware of what the SC can and cannot do. Once again they can not enforce anything and must rely upon member states to enforce their decisions (ie to abide by the embargos, sanctions etc). The SC can say whatever it wants, but it is up to the member states to do it, or ignore it.

Member states are obliged to help enforce mandates of the Security Council though. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "higher power."

At 4/18/07 11:58 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Why would Iran fund the Taliban, a Salafi, Wahhabist religious organization when they themselves are militant, revolutionary Shi'a?

They are also said to have supplied the Sunni insurgents in Iraq with weapons, and if I'm not mistaken they've funded Hamas (maybe only temporarily, I'm not sure) since the Western aid boycott came into existence. I don't think they're doing this (if they're doing this, of course, but I don't think it would be very unlikely) to permanently bring these groups into their sphere of influence, but while Iran is still trying to get its nuclear weapons programme under way all options, some of them military, are still on the tables of Bush and Olmert so keeping these nations bogged down in their respective occupied territories could be a great way to avoid the most serious heat.

At 4/19/07 07:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/19/07 02:11 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 4/19/07 01:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The same old same old

ROFl, hot damn thanks for that Cellar. Now that I haven't read anything of your in almost 3 weeks, I forgot how funny you were. Honestly, if this were a truly mature debate you would be thrown for your immaturity.

I love it how your only tactic you can ever use is to use personal attacks.

Oh come on Cellar, you are the king of insult on this BBS and you know it.

The way you try to say that 6 helicopters shipped after the Iran/Iraq war from Canada are similar to the anthrax, botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene the USA sent Iraq at the height of the Ian/Iraq is absolutely FUCKING hilarious.

First of all, I'm sure you can't provide a link to document that...

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s0920 02.html , search for the second instance of "anthrax" and read around it, you should read something to the effect of:
"former CDC Director David Satcher...points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two
dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples
that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly
diseases."
Or you can read this page for some interesting information, http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/
seed.htm

And if for whatever reason you don't want to believe those 2 pages, I have many more with the same info, just ask.

But never mind the fact that multiple countries were supplying Iraq to the best of their ability, the US wasn't the only country to give Iraq material for chemical/biological weapons.

You are absolutely correct. It seems to be an accepted tactic doesn't it? So fucking accept it.

I love how your only way of defending your country's actions consists of "well, we did it only a little bit."

To be honest with you, I am fine with my country sending Iraq 6 fucking helicopters to Iraq in 1988. Are you fine with the USA sending the plague, anthrax and botulism (just to name a few) to Iraq at the height of the chemical war between Iraq and Iran?

So Iran can arm our enemies, but we can't do anything about it or even complain about it because "what goes around comes around."

Do you understand how completely foolish (and hypocritical) you look when you complain about Iran arming your enemies but in the same breath defend the USA arming Iran's enemy?

At 4/20/07 09:44 AM, bcdemon wrote: Do you understand how completely foolish (and hypocritical) you look when you complain about Iran arming your enemies but in the same breath defend the USA arming Iran's enemy?

I don't know whether you realize this, but the people America's fighting would love to impose Shia Law, operate outside any pacts, and would think nothing of slitting the throats of your kids. America isn't not a rogue that nation that has delusions of creating a world dominated by an Islamic Empire.

At 4/20/07 02:18 PM, JakeHero wrote: I don't know whether you realize this, but the people America's fighting would love to impose Shia Law, operate outside any pacts, and would think nothing of slitting the throats of your kids. America isn't not a rogue that nation that has delusions of creating a world dominated by an Islamic Empire.

I love overgeneralizations. Not to mention the US wants to create a world Capitalist Empire. You are no better, and no worse than them. Just because you do not agree with them does nto mean they are going to slit the throats of your children. I would like you to prove this asusmption to me. The west (and yes that includes Canada so don't even bother replying cellardoor) would love nothing more than a world wide capitalist system. Hwo is this any worse than the goals of any other group of people?

I love it when people accept what they are spoon fed. I bet you probally believes Bosnia, Serbs and Croats had been killing eachother for centuries too.

At 4/20/07 04:11 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/20/07 02:18 PM, JakeHero wrote: I don't know whether you realize this, but the people America's fighting would love to impose Shia Law, operate outside any pacts, and would think nothing of slitting the throats of your kids. America isn't not a rogue that nation that has delusions of creating a world dominated by an Islamic Empire.

I love overgeneralizations. Not to mention the US wants to create a world Capitalist Empire.

I think that the US doesn't want world capitalism, but calling it an empire is beyond the mark. If the US wanted an empire, things would be a lot different in the world. It's funny that people claim the US wants an empire, yet every country the US has defeated in a war was later given a democracy and allowed to do its own thing.

You are no better, and no worse than them.

That's a joke.

I'm sure you're an outspoken supporter of womens' rights, individual freedom, freedom of speech, religion, freedom to desent etc..

You think that they allow this sort of thing in Iran? You think that Iran supports groups who have these types of values? You think that if Iran's goals are fulfilled, that any society they align themselves with or create will uphold these values?

Just because you do not agree with them does nto mean they are going to slit the throats of your children.

No, they'd rather just convert them to Islam, or kill them if they refuse. Now, you may call me paranoid, but Iran supports a little terrorist group called Hezbollah, which during the Lebanese Civil War (in which about half of my dad's family was killed), they specifically targeted Christians and executed them for that sole purpose. And Hezbollah's official mission statement says that it's goal is to turn Lebanon into an Islamic Caliphate, where Shari'a law is enforced.

Iran is no different, they just happen to covertly hide their terrorist ideals by giving the illusion to people like you that their goals are just nationalist, that they are just another state fighting for influence. When really, Iran is controlled by an apocalyptic interpretation of Islam where the final goal is an Islamic world empire, the destruction of all infidels etc.. Iran isn't motivated by secular, nationalist aspirations, they are motivated by their religious quests.

Just because they have what appears to you to be a legitimate government, doesn't mean that their goals are just self-preservation and prosperity, far from it.

I would like you to prove this asusmption to me. The west (and yes that includes Canada so don't even bother replying cellardoor) would love nothing more than a world wide capitalist system. Hwo is this any worse than the goals of any other group of people?

Compare the motives and the outcome.

Capitalism is an economic policy inside of democratic states where people have individual freedom, and have the destiny of their countries in their hands. In a Capitalist, Democratic country people aren't hanged for drinking alcohol or for being the VICTIM of rape.

In the Islamic-controlled, authoritarian Theocracy like Iran is and whose terrorist proxies wish to create, there is zero individual freedom, zero control over your destiny, etc.. Iran is controlled by a religion, and not just a religion but an interpretation of a religion that calls for its believers to create chaos and destruction in order to fulfill prophesy and usher in the returh of their Messiah.

What better way for them to do this than to make sure that like minded terrorist groups are supplied and can fight against the country they think is the only obstacle to them achieving their apocalyptic goals (the US)?

What better way for Iran to create chaos and destruction than attain a nuclear bomb?

Think about it instead of allowing your oxymoronic view of the world to cloud your judgment.

Last I checked, the Taliban was killing Afghani civillians, police and soldiers as well as NATO troops. The US is only a fraction of those that the Taliban targets. So what have the others done?

At 4/20/07 08:21 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 4/19/07 12:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/18/07 11:59 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: ya right like a Libertarian will ever make it into a mjor goverment

Hey, moron. I thought I told you to take get your own signature.

fuck that

Fuck YOU. I gave you a chance, I tried to be nice about it but now you're just being a dumb bitch. It's time to get the mods involved.

See, when someone asked me to use my sig nicely I allowed them to, but you just fucking stole it. Then I saw how you have talked about Muslims, Mormons, etc.. and it pissed me off so I decided you don't deserve it. Now it's time to bring the mods into it.

At 4/20/07 09:03 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now it's time to bring the mods into it.

I am sorry. Apparently I am too mentally deficient to be able to help you.