Re: To Sirknight67

Sirknight67 wrote:
> so now you have a complete turn around and change of heart? Odd indeed.

This is from your point of view. I don't think I have changed at all.

> A few days ago you were making all sorts of idiotic threats and
> arrogantly declaring the end for the Iranian people through nuclear
> holocasut. It didn't seem to bother you, the whole concept of the end
> of life through radiation...this sort of "kill'em all and let God
> sort'em out" attitude so pisses me off an dmy response to you was
> rightly deserved. And now, you tell me you don't wish any ills towards
> Iranian people.

See below.

> Let me ask you these few questions:
> 1) what do you know of Iran other than what has been aired in the news
> since...oh say 1979?
Quite a bit.
> 2) what do you of Iranian people in terms of their beliefs, the
> different ethnicities that make up the populace?

Do you mean the Muslims, the Zoroastrians, the Christians, the Baha'is, the aethists? How about the Baloch, Bakhtiari, Azari, Aryans, Kurds, Afghani, Papi, not to mention the Persians - do I need to go on?

> 3) What do you know of the opposition to the Iranian regime?

I know that Ahmadinejad's regime is barely holding on and that it is not popular with the majority of the Iranian people (so get rid of him already).

> 4) What do you think is the size of the opposition in terms of
> percentage of the population?

The opposition to the current regime is actually quite large as compared to the population.

> 5) Do you think that the current regime enjoys support from the
> majoirty of the population?

No, I do not.

>

Yes. I do know the answer to these and many more questions. I live in a community of over 250 Iranians and many many many are my friends. I know that the vast majority of Iranians in Iran and outside Iran do not support the current regime. Once again, get rid of them.

> Here are a few facts to educate you
> 1) Iranians have NEVER harmed Americans, that is other than through the
> actions of ARAB terrorists like the Hezbollah that was responsible for
> the blowing up of the Marines barracks in 1982, but then again, the US
> presence in Lebanon wasn't exactly justified was it?

No it wasn't. My best friend was a Marine hurt badly in that bombing. He recently had to have a kidney transplant (from his sister) due to the damage from that bombing so long ago.

> 2) Iranians have NEVER been at war with the United States, other than
> the unfortunate war of words and the taking of hostages by the Islamic
> Republic's thugs, like Ahmadinejad
>

I know this. I don't hate the Iranian people. It would be a shame that any Iranian people (non-combatants) were to get hurt due to their government. I feel that way about the non-combatants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. But their government made bad choices for their people and the people suffered. Like it or not, you will have to accept a certain definition: the government is for the people, by the people. In otherwords, the government is the people. If the people don't like the government then change it. It is called a revolution. Iran did it before and can do it again. The United States did it. Revolution is natural.


> Now for your arguments:
> the president and the so-called leadership and a few hundred Islamic
> goons make threats about building an arsenal etc...a few hundred
> assholes chant death to America...yes, over a span of 26 years and
> based on that, I would say that has hearned these people and thier
> affiliates the right to get their asses kicked. Fair is fair and I
> cannot argue wtih this.

Actually, I love watching news reports with those few hundred *** chanting death to America over and over again. It is a great comedy to me.

But based on your assurance that Iran is such a
> retarded country, which it is compared to the US, then why use nukes,
> isn't that a sign of sheer stupidity when taking into account the
> "fact" that Iran is way behind th US and that conventional warfare
> alone should take care of the deal?

As I tried to point out below, conventional warfare would risk our troops. Many more would be harmed using conventional warfare than otherwise. Remember the close of World War II and the bombing of Hirshima and Nagasaki? This was done to avoid the needless deaths of US and Japanse soldiers that would have happened in case of the invasion of Japan. The estimates of casualties in that scenario were around a million people killed total on both sides. Japan would have capitulated anyways. Your argument as applied to Japan back then: Japan was a defeated nation at the time, why not go "toe-to-toe" with them. How could the President of the United States face his people and say something as ridiculous as "We had to go toe-to-toe. You know, the toe-to-toe rule." when the American public knows (or would eventually find out in the case of World War II) about nuclear weapons.

Once again, in the history of agression (warfare), the opponent that has the mightiest weapon uses it to their advantage. It has been that way since the beginning, like it or not. Do you remember the first Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom movie? If you haven't seen this exciting movie, there is a scene in which the hero (Indiana Jones) finds himself facing an Arab swinging a huge menacing sword. The Arab swings the sword around ready to cut up the hero. The hero simply pulls out his gun and shoots the Arab dead. Do you think the two mean should have dropped their weapons and went at it toe-to-toe? Or perhaps the hero should have tried to get a similar sword or perhaps no sword at all but face him without using his gun, just going toe-to-toe as you call it. That is ludicrous. You use the weapons you have to your advantage.

Of course, the use of nuclear weapons should only be the last resort. In the case of Iran with it's irresponsible regime at the helm at the present time, the last resort would be when Iran starts to try to make nuclear weapons and the nuclear production facilities need to be taken out. Bombing them with conventional smart weapons could be done and that would put the facilites out of commision for a short while. However, using a small tactical nuke would put the facility out of commision for what would amount to an eternity.

>
>
> Randall P. Hootman wrote:
>
>>Insulting me will get you no where. I agree that the problem in Iran is
>>the corrupt government in bed with the corrupt mullahs. If I may be so
>>bold as to ask, and again get off the insulting diatribe, if the
>>majority of the Iranian people are so against the current regime why
>>aren't they doing something about it?
>>
>>Don't tell me that I don't understand the history of Iran nor the
>>current situation. I do very well as well as the past glorious history
>>of the Persian Empire. I know all about the freely elected democratic
>>president of Iran being voted in the 50s, the ousting of the very bad
>>Shah, the US CIA getting him back in power and other abuses by the US
>>towards Iran that in turn helped cause the '79 Iranian Revolution. I am
>>indeed sorry that our government did that to the Iranian people. I know
>>that after a time, the Iranian people got tired of the repressive
>>government of the Ayatollah Khomeni and all the other cronnies as well
>>as the ones today. So, I am a sympathiser to the Iranian people but not
>>to people that shake their puny spears at the US today. The US is in the
>>position of truely helping out the people of Iran.
>>
>>Why do I keep mentioning nukes? Not to be ignorant but to inject some
>>reality here. The US does factually have nukes and could use them
>>against the current regime if that is what it takes to wake up the
>>current regime. Why not use them if you have them? In the history of
>>aggression, one will use a superior weapon on the other if they have it
>>at their disposal. Have you seen the movie 2001: A Space Odessey? In the
>>opening scenes, one group of primates were to have a fight with another
>>over a watering hole. One group had just discovered the jaw-bone of a
>>large mammal could be used as a weapon. Did they drop it and go
>>toe-to-toe with the other group? No. They used it to quickly defeat the
>>other group. It also insured less injury to themselves. That is why it
>>means using nukes if necessary is the intelligent way to go. No need to
>>go toe-to-toe. Don't tell me Iran wouldn't use nukes if they had them. I
>>bet I could even guess on whom they would use them on.
>>
>>Do I really encourage my government to nuke Iran? That depends on what
>>the current Iranian regime does. However, if enough people on this
>>newsgroup advocate nuking Iran if the Iranian government doesn't get
>>their act together, maybe they will think a couple of times before they
>>do anything foolish. And maybe it will push the Iranian people that you
>>claim are against this regime into action. But maybe not.
>>
>>I personally don't want to see the Iranian people hurt. I just want to
>>see the current regime fall hard along with the mullahs. So stop
>>throwing insults at me and see if you, I, and others could work together
>>to get the current repressive regime thrown out. I never called you nor
>>any other of your countrymen insults the way that you seem to freely do
>>at others on this newsgroup. It is not a sign of intelligence nor does
>>it gain allies in the struggle for Iranian freedom. And when I say
>>Iranian freedom, I mean an Iran free to become a 1st class world citizen
>>stripped of the repressive government and mullahs that intrude on the
>>personal freedoms of the citizens of Iran. I do not mean an Iran
>>cowering to the whims of the USA either. Just an Iran where the citizens
>> are guaranteed their personal freedoms. No more secret police, no CIA
>>intruding, etc.
>>
>>Sirknight67 wrote:
>>
>>>you degenerate imbecile
>>>
>>>US was feeding Iraq all sorts of information on Iranian troop movements
>>>via sattelite and AWACS intelligence gathering...not to mention that
>>>Germany and France were feeding Iraq poison gas and exocet missiles
>>>respectively, as well as helicopters etc...
>>>Iraq had the most up to date military weaponry and they went up against
>>>schoolchildren...
>>>
>>>SCHOOLCHILDREN who fought for their homeland, and not necessarily for
>>>the stinking regime of the scumbag mullahs and that pile of piss called
>>>islam.
>>>You have no idea what kind of fighters Iranians make. But being the
>>>stupid, illiterate dumb ass Yankee sister shagging trailer trash that
>>>you are, the concept that the majoirty of Iranians are against the
>>>regime doesn't even cross your big bac consuming fat ass does it?
>>>
>>>Better yet, explain to me why if you have ten times more tanks, ships,
>>>fighters and infantry not to mention state of the art conventional
>>>weaponry, you have to mention NUKES? Goes to show what a *** ass,
>>>bitch you and your yankee pile of garbage are. Always talk *** with
>>>bombs and video-game style push button warfare. Try and go toe to toe
>>>and you will eat the same kind of *** you did in Vietnam you submoron.
>>> But you're too stupid to understand that you bucktooth degenerate meth
>>>snorting trailer trash.
>>>
>>>Randall P. Hootman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'm sure America is scared now. How many days
>>>>did it take for us to take over Iraq? How long did the war between Iran
>>>>and Iraq take that neither side won? 8 years. That shows how strong the
>>>>Iranians are. You couldn't do to Iraq what we did in relatively a few
>>>>days. And don't forget we can do a preemptive nuclear strike W. Want to
>>>>be a human piece of toast? A Crispy Critter? Need ketchup when you're a
>>>>french fry? KABOOM W KABOOM.
>>>
>>>
>
.

Quantcast