Mickyjaystoned said:You are simply speculating Iran has plans for Israel and US, apart from a few hyped up digs at the Zionist bankers in charge of Israel what has Iran done to attrct such venom?
What makes you think Iran is a threat to anyone, answer that and i'll answer your poll.
Mickyjaystoned said:In between keeping my eye on the Whackjob Nazi neo-con who runs America, and the Freemason slime ball in 10 Downing street...
FinnMacCool said:Step #1. Find out if they really are making nuclear weapons
Step #2. Force them to disarm.
Your poll sucks btw.
And you're avoiding the question.
Stop arguing the given and answer it.
Its only 'complicated' for those that want to avoid the issue.FinnMacCool said:Thats why your poll sucks. There is no answer that won't support your agenda. You make it sound so simple but it really isn't.
Its only 'complicated' for those that want to avoid the issue.
The question (reasonably) assumes that:
1- Iran has (or will soon have) nukes.
2- Iran will use them on Israel.
If you're arguing against theese assumtions, you're arguing against the given -- in an attempt to avoid answering the question.
Now, why would you NOT want to answer the question?
FinnMacCool said:Thats cute but its not going to work. Every issue deserves a considerable amount of thought before action is taken. This is no exception. Iran will not launch nukes by this afternoon. You can take a minutes to
1) sit down
2) grab a cup of tea
3) look at the facts
4) decide your course of action.
You're still arguing the given.
The question assumes that all these things have been considered, and the three choices listed remain.
Now, why do you NOT want to answer the question?
FinnMacCool said:Because I've already answered it on a seperate thread and it would be tremendously redundant to answer it agian on this thread. I only took issue with the limited number of choices you made and how you present the matter so simply. I'm done with this thread now, that is unless you take issue with this post.
No. I've already answered you on that. If you do not believe me, well theres nothing I can do for you.So, you're just avoiding the issue.
Because I consider it a problem when the american people think they have only two options. I think thats a problem that needs to be corrected.You can argue all you want that there might be 'more choices', but the question (reasonably) assumes there aren't. You don't have to like the question for the question to be valid -- and if you arent willing to answer the question as asked, why bother posting?
Sometimes, you have to chose between options you don't like. When that happens, whining about the options wont gain you more otions to chose from.
There were three options.FinnMacCool said:Because I consider it a problem when the american people think they have only two options. I think thats a problem that needs to be corrected.
Yes. It is.True, but that isn't the case here.
There were three options.
And somtimes, there ARE only two options. The question assumes this, and its not an unreasoable assumption.
Yes. It is.
It doesnt matter how much you whine, the number of options arent going to change.
The question assumes that negotiations have already failed, and that your only choices are to hit them before they hit Israel, or after, or do nothing.
FinnMacCool said:If its clear that they had nuclear weapons I would advocate a combined attack on Iran to clear out nuclear weapons, with UN backing, if possible.
I have mixed feeling on the subject. But if I had only like a day to decide, then that would be my decision.
SixStringHero said:Why is supporting Israel a partisan issue?