If Iran and Israel's role's were reversed, would you still feel the same way?

[Glamour Puss]

The pig's personal religious polemic is getting in the way of sound judgment.


There is nothing in Iran's history to suggest they shouldn't be trusted with nuclear technology.

What this comes down to is a double standard against Muslims in a disguised form of xenophobia.

The West might no like Ahmadinejead but he won the popular vote there despite efforts by the CIA to attempt a color revolution people power coup there in the form of Mousavi.

http://current.com/1q0gu4c

Furthermore, the idea that the Imperialist colonialist forces of the U.S, U.K and Israel are the ones opposed to a country defending itself when they are invading countries on its doorstep and attempting to destabilize it openly is not only ironic but smug, arrogant and stupid.

If the Iranians or Iraqi's were carrying out invasions of Canada or Mexico, I doubt the U.S citizenry would stand idly by and think nothing of it.

On the flipside, if the Iranians or Iraqi's were moving into Western Europe and invading France, Germany or Denmark, I doubt the British would sit idly by and think nothing of it.

This is not a complicated argument at all. Its only governing factor is common sense and a basic understanding of international law.

[Walt Liquor]

Apparently I'm being ignored because I asked about vagina. You snooty bastards.

As far as nukes go, I agree with what Jack said, nothing in Iran's history shows they are not to be trusted with nukes. Doesn't North Korea have nukes and that guy is a certified nutjob.

Yes Iran funnels money to Hamas, think they would funnel nukes so Israel could retaliate on the entire Middle East with theirs? Not likely.

If Iran was oppressing its neighbors after having a state created for its people 50-60 years ago, I would have trouble sympathising. I uderstand they both don't want each other there, but it's far from being an equal footing situation.

[Glamour Puss]

The idea that a peaceful Muslim country can't be trusted with advanced technology is also patently racist because the implication is that Muslims are too primitive or savage to have them.

You might as well call them 3/5 of a country.

It also is a contradiction of recent history considering Iraq was supplied with chemical and biological weapons by the United States when Hussein was a U.S puppet.

No matter how you try to argue the case for the U.S/U.K/Israeli imperialists, you will lose.

History doesn't support the argument, and more importantly, they are the belligerents in the region that are throwing their military weight around, thus they have no moral or legal standing.

[Walt Liquor]

The idea that a peaceful Muslim country can't be trusted with advanced technology is also patently racist because the implication is that Muslims are too primitive or savage to have them.

You might as well call them 3/5 of a country.

It also is a contradiction of recent history considering Iraq was supplied with chemical and biological weapons by the United States when Hussein was a U.S puppet.

No matter how you try to argue the case for the U.S/U.K/Israeli imperialists, you will lose.

History doesn't support the argument, and more importantly, they are the belligerents in the region that are throwing their military weight around, thus they have no moral or legal standing.

i agree with this


....luckily we are sooooo rich that we are not doing it at the expense of our citizens right????

[Rolling Stone]

Israel is a functioning democracy in which non Jews are entitled to vote and hold public office. Divesting the nation of dogma would improve it but it is not ruled by theocracy in the way that Iran is.

what a load of horse ****e....the fact remains Israel was founded upon a racist ideology and its very policies condone the mass genocide of Palestinians

[Rolling Stone]

The idea that a peaceful Muslim country can't be trusted with advanced technology is also patently racist because the implication is that Muslims are too primitive or savage to have them.

You might as well call them 3/5 of a country.

It also is a contradiction of recent history considering Iraq was supplied with chemical and biological weapons by the United States when Hussein was a U.S puppet.

No matter how you try to argue the case for the U.S/U.K/Israeli imperialists, you will lose.

History doesn't support the argument, and more importantly, they are the belligerents in the region that are throwing their military weight around, thus they have no moral or legal standing.

Brilliant ****ing post

[squealpiggy]

They have elections, that is about it, but even their last one was full of contreversy. Also non jews can not even aquire office space and can not hold land permanently, so it is far from the democratic nation you speak about.

Non Jews and vote and hold public office. Israel is a functioning democracy. The land issue is more complex than you are framing it, nobody can own land in Israel, they get very long leases. The land is either owned by the State or by the Jewish National Fund and is distributed through various agencies. The main agency is the Jewish Agency which will not lease to non Jews as a matter of policy despite the fact that this discrimination is illegal under Israeli law...

But non Jews can still vote and hold public office.

The pig's personal religious polemic is getting in the way of sound judgment.


There is nothing in Iran's history to suggest they shouldn't be trusted with nuclear technology.

What this comes down to is a double standard against Muslims in a disguised form of xenophobia.

Don't be a coward, hiding behind weasel words. Iran is a theocracy. Any country ruled by people who are certain that the afterlife is better than this one should not be trusted with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately this means that the USA technically should be banned from having them!

Let's roll it back a bit though: If Israel did not have nuclear weapons I would be against Israel having nuclear weapons. The same goes for Pakistan, India, France, everyone. The fewer nukes the safer the world.

The West might no like Ahmadinejead

Ahmedinejad is completely irrelevant. He won the election because the Ayatollah wanted him to. It's the clerics that have been ruling Iran, not their presidents.

he won the popular vote there despite efforts by the CIA to attempt a color revolution people power coup there in the form of Mousavi.

What? You think that Mousavi was a Western conspiracy? No way, really? If EVEN YOU think there was a conspiracy then there just might be something in it!

No seriously I'm bored of you, Fox Mulder.

As far as nukes go, I agree with what Jack said, nothing in Iran's history shows they are not to be trusted with nukes. Doesn't North Korea have nukes and that guy is a certified nutjob.

North Korea shouldn't have nukes.

The idea that a peaceful Muslim country can't be trusted with advanced technology is also patently racist because the implication is that Muslims are too primitive or savage to have them.

No, the argument is that countries ruled by theocrats shouldn't have nukes because if they really believe what they preach then Mutually Assured Destruction = Get To Heaven Quicker.

In fact I think that any country that is comprised of relatively clever monkeys who live in territorial hierarchical social groups is unfit to have nuclear weapons. And this basically means all of us.

[squealpiggy]

what a load of horse ****e....the fact remains Israel was founded upon a racist ideology and its very policies condone the mass genocide of Palestinians

Your mass genocide has failed to materialise.

[Mares]

It doesnt mater. I will always hate Israel.

doesn't matter i will always love israel, **** iran fuk religion.

[Rolling Stone]

doesn't matter i will always love israel, **** iran fuk religion.

you're zionist ass should be shot right away