"Ahmadinejad: Iran is determined to eradicate Zionism"

That's not entirely in your hands. Israel is utterly dependent upon US support. There are upwards of 1.5 billion muslims in the world, most of whom hate Zionism, the Middle East oil fields have a further life expectancy of 50 years- by which time there will be a Latino majority in America. Use of the Zionists' nuclear arsenal will invoke mutually assured destruction and climate change seems certain to make Israel uninhabitable for millions. Your prospects are not exactly rosy.

 

Not even remotely close. You can debate the "left leaning" of some of the articles, but as a whole its pretty good.

Conservapedia on the other hand is blatantly christian conservative with all the misinformation and ignorance that that market segment has embraced.
Its also politically biased. It incessently criticizes the president and democratic policies.

That aint a reference site, that's a propaganda site masquerading as a reference site for people with no critical thinking skills, dumb people, ignorant people or those whose faith is supreme.

 

Its all about the 12th Imam.

 

Yeah, but Iran has to exist for it all to come together.

 

Israel will ultimately collapse, yet it won't be any Arab nation that is behind it.

Israel itself will bring about it's own collapse.

Political scientists, Jewish as well, Norman Finkelstein, and let us not forget Noam Chomsky, they know that Israel is a lunatic state, if it were a MHP, it would be schizophrenia, and as we all know, a lunatic burns out, in the end, albeit not without creating untold misery along the way...

 

Duplicate post

 

Well, see, no, that just isn't true, is it?

Not unless you either regard them as a special case, or apply it to all.

Do you?

 

Is that cast in stone policy, or just something you 'think'..?

 

I saw the words of my post carved into the stonewall by the Moving Finger of Gawd.

The people residing in America are through with war unless clearly attacked first by an identifiable foe. The figurative fight isn't overseas.

 

I would assume that all in all Americans are halfway decent people and as such were so shocked at what they saw upon the US test-dropping of a nuke in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they didn't forget it but wouldn't want their nation's honour to be tainted by such an atrocity again.
Decent Americans were also shocked at the devastation the US caused in Vietnam where up to this very day children are born with birth defects due to the US-use of Agent Orange and these decent Americans joined the peace-movement and seek justice for the victims: http://www.vn-agentorange.org/2011-08-10-50th-anniversary-appeal.html. Apparently you're not one of these decent Americans.

 

This is very true. Decent Americans are horrified at the loss of innocent lives in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Vietnam.

 

I guess the logic here is that if Vietnam had been obliterated, as the poster evidently feels is appropriate, then there wouldn't be anyone left to be born with defects-hence no problem!

Furthermore if Hiroshima and Nagasaki are any example, then there are still children being born with horrific genetic defects as a result of America not fighting a 'gentlemanly' war in 1945, but going for the total war option.

 

Actually, I marched against the war in Vietnam! I was totally against it from the very beginning. But you didn't bother to read my post, evidently, and yet you are very willing to slam me....

I SAID that a nation must be very, very careful before making the commitment to go to war, but once that determination is made, then it must fight the war to win!

Thus, you bet we were right to drop atomic bombs on the Empire of Japan! And we were totally wrong to fight conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq, or Afghanistan with one hand tied behind our backs.

Going to war, Junobet, is not like going to the fabled "campfires" where we sit around and sing "Kumbaya" with people who are commited to trying to destroy us and our national life. When war is the only course of last resort, then you use everything at your desposal to totally remove that enemy's capacity to make war on you... and, then if you want to, you can be "decent" (I note your fondness for that word) in dictating the terms of your enemy's surrender! Then, and only then, is the time when you might want to sit around and sing "Kumbaya"....

 

Oh look !

Another loud american wanting to kill lots of people and telling us about war!

 

Explain how dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was justified given that the war would have almost certainly been won regardless?

 

1. Iran has a right to a nuke as long as Israel does.
2. Iran wants nukes for self defence, as almost every military analyst has confirmed. They speak of eradicating Israel as a means of rallying support in the region - and its working btw
3. Even if you are still worried about Iran sparking conflict, dont be because the Iranian totalitarian regime does not have long before it is toppled by popular demand.
4. If you are worried about Israel being destroyed because of its crimes against the Palestinians, well the only way to cool your fear in this regard is to get Israel to stop. But since Israel clearly does not want peace or an to its expansion, this is highly unlikely.

 

I'm afraid that that's true for every country within the Zionists' range. The UN was created to have the world's States work towards universal peace. Any country which scorns international law, as Israel does, should be stopped. Helping it to achieve and maintain a nuclear capability is utter folly.

 

Oh, look! Another child who has no idea how the world works, or how it has worked for thousands of years before. You and the other thumb-suckers will probably get to learn it all the hard way, and with any luck I'll be nice and comfortably dead by then....

If you're no good at being able to make war, and fight it intelligently, you better get good at being on your knees.

 

They really don't teach you children a d**n thing in school anymore, do they.... I'm not surprised you don't know anything about American history... hell, outside of f-ing with your "smartphones", twittering each other, and other trivial crap, few of you know anything about anything, but that's how we end up with presidents like Obama. And maybe that also tells us something about why so many of the under-30 crowd are still at home with mommy and daddy, sucking their thumbs in complete uselessness....

Anyway, there's dozens and dozens of sites you can learn from about why it would have created a devastatingly high number of casualities for the U. S. to have invaded the Japanese mainland instead of using its nuclear weapons, but I will give you one, and the following excerpt. If you have any intellectual curiosity between your ears, you'll find out more, and figure it out... it's not hard.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths."

Doh, like, you know, people would have died and stuff... I mean, you know, like, it would have piled hundreds of thousands more dead on top of the already hundreds of thousands of dead there already were... and stuff....