How EXACTLY Is Iran A Threat To The United States?

[The Question]

Well my attention does tend to drift on political topics, that is the nature of threads. Let's look at your original post again:



Tucker Carlson lost the bowtie but he's still a total dork. He and his guests suck. (Congratulations on being in his audience of 6, though.)

Boring off-topic crap.

Iran became a direct threat to the United States when their radical government took our embassy hostage for OVER A YEAR during the cowardly Jimmy Carter administration.

That made it a direct threat to one asset -- an embassy.

The Ayatollah's slogan "American can do nothing" became a rallying cry for Islamic jihad. Furthermore, Iran's deliberate and obvious attempt to attain hegemony over the entire Middle East (as noted by countless commentators from the entire political spectrum) makes them a direct and deadly threat to the United States, our allies in the region, and our interests globally.

It makes them a threat to one of our allies in the region. And how do their aspirations affect our global interests?

I'm curious as to what Question thinks about American troops being in Germany, South Korea, Okinawa, Bosnia, or any other place they're stationed worldwide. Do you also believe there is no direct threat to the United States in those places, so we should pull all the troops home?

No, I don't think Germany or Bosnia, for example, currently have the capability to directly threaten the U.S. South Korea has shown no inclination to pose a threat, and neither has Japan. As to whether or not we should have troops deployed there -- there's a difference between deployed and engaged.

Fortunately for the United States, we do not have a president who waits while threats to us build and build and build until we are doomed by events.

No, we have one that struts and preens, ensuring that molehills will become mountains.

Bush has acted to head off threats from the area quite well, and the harder we push, the harder the Islamic fundamentalists push back.

Which is why starting a shoving match with them is idiotic.

Liberals act like this is a great surprise, these people are bent on power and domination of the region, not because they suddenly don't like Bush.

And the more we shout and flex and get in their faces, the more determined they become to create a unified hegemony that can keep us out of their business, punctuating their resistance by bringing the fight to American soil every now and then.

You say it's not about Bush? It's all about Bush to the left.

And, oddly enough, to you.

 

[Ogami]

The Question wrote:

That made it a direct threat to one asset -- an embassy.

Hey, the Germans only attacked one asset, Poland! The Japanese only attacked one asset, Pearl Harbor! Who ever heard of that place anyway, who cares?

Just because the embassy hostage crisis happened before your lifetime doesn't mean it didn't happen. And those people are still in charge in Iran. Ignore them at your peril.

It makes them a threat to one of our allies in the region. And how do their aspirations affect our global interests?

Ignore Iran at your peril. We used to have a policy that if you don't bother them, they won't bother you. That policy was vigorously enforced on our end through the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the bombing of our African embassies, and various other Iranian-funded/Iranian-inspired terror attacks.

Question, you style yourself a smart person, and a smart person would be looking at the cause instead of the symptoms. If Iran is not a sponsor of worldwide Islamic terror, then we should ignore them. But you know better.

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

That made it a direct threat to one asset -- an embassy.

Hey, the Germans only attacked one asset, Poland!

Poland neither was nor is an American civil or military asset.[/quote]

The Japanese only attacked one asset, Pearl Harbor!

With a direct military strike on a military target which was authorized by the Japanese government and which preceded a formal declaration of war by that government. Much like the storied liberals of this board, you just don't do details.

Just because the embassy hostage crisis happened before your lifetime doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And just because it happened doesn't make its occurrence mean all that you apparently want it to.

And those people are still in charge in Iran.

This is another fine example of your tendency toward propagandistic exaggeration. Prove that the exact same individuals that orchestrated the embassy hostage crisis are still running Iran today. Show me a photo of what's-his-name... Ohmagod Ahmadinnerplate or whatever it is, contemporary to that event and clearly in a position of leadership in connection with it. You want to say it's the same people, prove it's exactly the same individual people. Or stop fucking generalizing; that kind of hysterical bullshit is for libs.

It makes them a threat to one of our allies in the region. And how do their aspirations affect our global interests?

Ignore Iran at your peril. We used to have a policy that if you don't bother them, they won't bother you. That policy was vigorously enforced on our end through the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the bombing of our African embassies, and various other Iranian-funded/Iranian-inspired terror attacks.

Now seperate out your bullshit into categories, here -- you're ignoring the other major player in this game: Libya.

Question, you style yourself a smart person, and a smart person would be looking at the cause instead of the symptoms.

And the cause of terror attacks against the United States is the fact that the United States funds and arms Israel. Point... fucking... blank. There it is. There's your cause. You call Israel our "only ally" in the region, but you absolutely will not acknowledge the reason why they're our only ally in the region, nor will you acknowledge the fact that they're not functionally an ally, but rather a dependent.

If Iran is not a sponsor of worldwide Islamic terror, then we should ignore them. But you know better.

And if Iran is a sponsor of worldwide Islamic terror -- as their connections to Hezbollah suggest that they are -- then we need to deal with Hezbollah with absolute ruthlessness within our borders and cease to provoke them outside our borders. If a man walks into your house and threatens your family, you slaughter that man with no mercy and no remorse. But you do not stroll into his neighborhood and threaten him.

 

[Ogami]

The Question wrote:

But you do not stroll into his neighborhood and threaten him.

Why are you pretending this is hypothetical? Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists did stroll into our neighborhood and did more than threaten, they killed over 3,000 Americans.

The Democrat position is to slap handcuffs on 2-3 people and consider the matter closed. The Republican position is to hunt down these fundamentalist islamic terrorists globally, in whatever country succors, funds, houses, feeds, trains, or raises them. This is not hypothetical, the enemy has started the global war, do you respond or do you just wall yourself up at home and hope to go unnoticed?

9/11 proved that ignoring islamic fascism is no longer an option.

-Ogami

 

[Imperium]

I don't know why you bother Ogami. Daniel is stonedeaf. Although, you missed out when he accused the Jew in alt.revisionism of deleting the thread he made and it never was.

 

[Tyrant]

I don't know why you bother Ogami. Daniel is stonedeaf. Although, you missed out when he accused the Jew in alt.revisionism of deleting the thread he made and it never was.

That's right - keep going. It's all about pulling Gentiles into the squabbles Jews make for themselves.

 

[Tyrant]

I don't feel like educating grasshopper on Israel. Let's wait until his convoy is mercilessly attacked by Israeli jets. Then he'll change his tune.

 

[Ogami]

Imperium wrote:

I don't know why you bother Ogami. Daniel is stonedeaf.

I just finished reading an essay collection by the New York Times' Thomas L. Friedman, "Longitudes and Attitudes". In the months leading up to 9/11, he laments that the arab world does not instead have intifadahs to educate their children, and that the arabs have thrown away the peace deals that Clinton worked out for them. He labors long on how the arabs would be better off with respect for legality, respect for freedom, respect for toleration. Now Friedman spends his time complaining that Bush is doing precisely what he complained about. But because it's not a Democrat doing it, well then it's all wrong.

-Ogami

 

[Red Whacker]

^The problem with your particular view, is that it's set from an ideological standpoint and not that of a what works.

In essence you will always fail since you can not acknowledge that the solution is not representative of your way of thinking.

 

[Ogami]

Red Whacker wrote:

The problem with your particular view, is that it's set from an ideological standpoint and not that of a what works.

The problem with critics of the Bush Administration is that they proceed on a series of caricatures of Bush and his team, rather than who they are and what they do. The critics say Bush is a dummy, that he's a dupe of oil neocons, that he's a reckless cowboy, and so on. Instead, Bush has proven he is a student of history, he has studied the history of the world quite well, and cites historical lessons in various aspects of America's foreign policy through the centuries. That's the way Bush thinks, that's the way I think, and it's why I can support Israel over her enemies.

Did you know Bush got better grades in college than Al Gore? No, I bet you didn't, because that would go against the assumptions of Bush bashers. They've repeated their caricatures so many times, that they believe all of them.

Thus with each election during Bush's presidency, the left has been STUNNED to be defeated by this man they termed a simpleton and a dupe. Bush cleaned up in 2002 and 2004 because his opposition was not running against him, but on the caricature they had laughed themselves silly over.

In a microcosm, I get a small sampling of the ire the left dumps on Bush. But it's all the same pattern. Anyone who supports Bush must be uneducated, anyone who supports Bush must not have a command of historical fact, anyone who supports Bush must just be doing so in a kneejerk fashion, and not after a careful and considered examination of the situation.

I support Bush because his worldview matches mine, not the other way around. I do have an ideological standpoint, that American culture is the driving force of freedom in the world today. That American culture is superior to the cultures in the rest of the world. If not, why would the rest of the world be so desperate to leave their countries and move to America if their culture is so hot?

The hatred of Bush worldwide is merely a small facet of anti-Americanism, and it's all based on envy. America has an unemployment rate under 5%, and yes that includes all of our minorities too. Look at the countries in Europe, those who look down on America, they WISH they had such unemployment rates. America represents the best that free enterprise, capitalism, and personal freedom can achieve. Rather than "taking more than our fair share", as is the shrill claim of the Communist left, it is America that is a beacon to the rest of the world. We produce more food than we consume, and we ship it around the world. We take raw materials that no one else would buy and turn it into goods that the rest of the world wants. For this, America is blamed for "stealing" from the rest of the world, when it is America that props up the economies of the world. We did this through hard work and initiative, something apparently lacking in many third world hellholes.

There's no problem with my ideological standpoint, save that me and my country are constant irritants to those who want to remake the world into their socialist hell. And America is a constant reminder that Communism fails, socialism fails, and so are those who espouse those ideologies. America is inconvenient to the worldwide left, even as they use our riches to live comfortable lifestyles.

I wouldn't trade my ideology for anything the Communist, socialist left has to offer. I'm not a victim, and I resent any group of clowns who go through life trying to convince as many people as possible that they are victims of something or someone. Escape the cult of victimology, become a conservative. It's the party of rich people, and more importantly, those who want to be.

-Ogami

 

[Red Whacker]

^Yet much of your economy is based on Socialist ideals.

Fascinating.

 

[Sarek]

^When did you get out of prison?

 

[The Question]

The Question]

But you do not stroll into his neighborhood and threaten him.

Why are you pretending this is hypothetical?

Why are you accusing me of pretending anything?

Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists did stroll into our neighborhood and did more than threaten, they killed over 3,000 Americans.

Right, because we weren't meddling in their region of the world first.

The Democrat position is to slap handcuffs on 2-3 people and consider the matter closed.

I thought the Democrat position was to do nothing at all.

The Republican position is to hunt down these fundamentalist islamic terrorists globally, in whatever country succors, funds, houses, feeds, trains, or raises them.

In other words, the Democrat position is to stand there and let the wasps swarm them. The Republican position is to get stung and then go looking for more wasps' nests to stir up so they can get stung even more.

This is not hypothetical, the enemy has started the global war, do you respond or do you just wall yourself up at home and hope to go unnoticed?

You stop fucking with wasps' nests.

9/11 proved that ignoring islamic fascism is no longer an option.

No, 9/11 proved that having Israel as a child state not only doesn't help us, it harms us.

 

[Blindgroping]

Wow. You got Red Whacker And Imperium out for this one.

You two (and Ogami) realize that your giving him a hardon?

(btw: Awww, forget it, you're all too narrow minded to see anything other what you already see through you toilepaper tube.)

 

[Ogami]

The Question asked:

Why are you accusing me of pretending anything?

I don't know. I like to pretend that I own a Subaru WRX.

The Republican position is to get stung and then go looking for more wasps' nests to stir up so they can get stung even more.

Wrong. The Republican position is to ensure a lucrative market for Halliburton's patented wasp sting cure.
________________

Blindgroping wrote:

(btw: Awww, forget it, you're all too narrow minded to see anything other what you already see through you toilepaper tube.)

I just tried it and I can't see anything different.

-Ogami

 

[Imperium]

You two (and Ogami) realize that your giving him a hardon?

:laugh:

 

[The Question]

Wrong. The Republican position is to ensure a lucrative market for Halliburton's patented wasp sting cure.

And how's that cure been fuckin' working, dickhole? That's my whole point. It isn't. Fucking. Working. It's only making the problem worse.

 

[Ogami]

So if the United States takes an active interest in the Middle East, this will -gasp- OFFEND Islamic Fundamentalists who want hegemony over the region?

Question, welcome to the real world. That's where Bush lives, and so do I.

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

So if the United States takes an active interest in the Middle East, this will -gasp- OFFEND Islamic Fundamentalists who want hegemony over the region?

"Takes an interest in"? You make it sound like we're all checking out fucking library books on the subject, instead of propping up an apartheid regime there.

Question, welcome to the real world. That's where Bush lives, and so do I.

The world where you live has more of "truthiness" to it than reality, boy.

 

[Red Whacker]

^When did you get out of prison?

Good behaviour gets you places.

...and being the shower whore kind of helped too... :blush: