Ok, well I have had it with that crap 3rd world country. Today their leader with a insanley long name said "the world will witness the destruction of Isreal soon" I mean WTF. They just litteraly asked for a war.

Now the question is, will the USA defend and aid Isreal? I personally say we should. We should bomb that country to no end, take out the goverment and just pack up and leave. No Iraq style where we rebuild and police a civil war.

I also think the Brits should come and help aswell. Might aswell start a freaking Crusade.

/endrant
sorry in a bad mood

Congressmen Hunter for President!!
Or Rommney, or Mccain or Guiliani.

I've been watching Ahmadinejad ever since he came to power. He is canny, politically savvy, and very dangerous. He has been posturing for some time and has not made his views about Israel secret. If he attacks US allies he'll undoubtedly face US forces, but I don't believe we should go in there and try to pre-emptively do something. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mossad did something, though....

I think we should do a preemptive strike on them. It is much safer to us and Isreal to attack them before they attack us.

In reality it is like 9/11. We were on the defense we were wrong one time and they got us. But if we are on the offensive then they cant strike us first.

Plus he is holding US citizens hostage calling them spies...

Man I hate Iran with a passion lol.

I agree 110% you have to fight terror with terror lol.

Technically Iran has committed several acts of war already, supplying and supporting attacks on our troops in Iraq, unlawfully arresting our citizens on bogus charges, supporting terror groups whom are attacking Israel (an ally of the United States). Invasion wouldn't be an answer particularly with resources tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, that's not to say a bunch of cruise missiles into their Nuclear Reactor sites wouldn't be prudent.

On another note, Iran was involved in the attempted terrorist attack on Saudi Arabia's oil wells. Maybe we could get the Saudis to attack Iran for us as payback for trying to bomb their oil wells.

Post deleted - hateful statements calling for the destruction of a country will not be tolerated on the boards.

- Darth333

I do not think advocating the destruction of an entire country simply because you believe they "dont contribute to anything they are just a waste of space and life" is morally or ethically sound. I suggest you educate yourself further about the issue before you make such general and awful statements.

Yeah, and I also think you should be destroyed because you are doing nothing but contribute an opinion that is hateful and mean.

Now, I don't really mean that, but hopefully you get the idea I'm trying to put across. You are currently stating you want to see the destruction of the group of people with absolutely no fact or moral reasoning behind it, and if you continue I am afraid I will have to report you.

Everybody has the right to an opinion, but in this forum we try and put facts and reason behind our debates. Hate comments are not tolerated. I suggest you please educate yourself and think about what you are posting before you press the 'post reply' button.

What can we do? We place our trusts in our governments to do the right thing by our respective countries; as individuals we can protest but it is our leaders that hold all the power, and at the end of the day they will come up with peaceful democratic solutions to world crisis' (such as the immonent threat of Iran, North Korea etc.) or choose oblivion through an act of war - as individuals we don't have many options open to us for change.

I also think the Brits should come and help aswell. Might aswell start a freaking Crusade.
No offence but i don't want this, as a 'Brit' as you so put it i have had enough of our soldiers fighting and dying for a cause that has no meaning or value.

As far as it being a pointless fight I'd have to respectfully disagree, I don't particularly want to see a nuclear weapon in the hands of a bunch of fanatics that wouldn't hesitate to use it.

Iran is controled by religious fanatics whom are the ones in charge of the Military, the average Iranian isn't an extremist, the extremists just happen to be the ones that have control of the country with the support of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and various secret police units.

The religious extremists in Iran are trying to start a fight with Israel and the United States due to the fact that domestically Iran is in dire straights, so they are trying to distract the populace from domestic problems.

The problem is that the people whom control Iran right now will probably launch nuclear weapons at Israel almost as soon as they get them. They really don't care what happens to the civilian population as a result of Israel's retaliation. While Israel officially doesn't have nukes, unofficially it is believed Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons. In all honesty Saddam would have had a nuke before the 1st Gulf War if not for the actions of Israel.

Seriously, it is likely that military action will have to be taken against Iran, I'm just hoping it will end up being another muslim country like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Jordan that ends up attacking Iran. While Israel would probably be a lot more efficient going about knocking out Iran's nuclear capability, it would anger a lot of muslims that Israel is attacking a muslim country even though it is justifiable.

I was quoting the Iraqi War, i agree and respect your points on this subject matter though.

As far as it being a pointless fight I'd have to respectfully disagree, I don't particularly want to see a nuclear weapon in the hands of a bunch of fanatics that wouldn't hesitate to use it.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20070604-022118-4110)

MOSCOW, June 4 (UPI) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin told a British newspaper U.S. plans to put a missile defense system in eastern Europe could trigger a nuclear war.

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the U.S. is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond," Putin told The Times of London.

"This system of missile defense on one side and the absence of this system on the other ... increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict."

This article sums up my view on the issue. Iran is not the threat to America. Russia is. Russia actually got nukes, unlike Iran. Russia is angry at the Missle Defense Shield being installed in Poland and Czech Republic...America claims it is to defend against rogue nations, but Russia is paranoid that it is really aimed at them, and that Russia is ready to go to war to stop the Missle Shield from being built. And with Russia allied with China, you can bet that we may go to war with them in the near future if Bush doesn't stop this building of this Missle Shield. (I'm personally opposed to the Missle Shield, but it doesn't really matter anyway, for it seems to go on anyway, and we're talking about threats to America...)

I don't care who's right and who's wrong in the Missle Shield spat. Frankly, FORGET Iran, and turn your attention to Putin and his successor, for these are the guys with nukes and the will to use them...and the ability to wage a sustained war against United States of America if need be.

Worst case sceranio in Iran: We get bogged down in an Iraq/Somaila-style quamire. Worst case Scernaio in Russia: Putin installs a puppet government in Washigtion, D.C, and then bogged down in an Iraq/Somaila-style quamire with American rebels playing the role as the terrorists.

Ok, well I have had it with that crap 3rd world country.
Yee-ah! Day-ang those darn Ay-rayabs to tarnation!

Today their leader with a insanley long name said "the world will witness the destruction of Isreal soon" I mean WTF. They just litteraly asked for a war.
We shud nook 'em, jerst lark the Jay-aps 'n 'forti-faave.

Now the question is, will the USA defend and aid Isreal? I personally say we should. We should bomb that country to no end, take out the goverment and just pack up and leave. No Iraq style where we rebuild and police a civil war.
Yay-ah! Day-eth to our enemays! Those dang muz-limms deezerve to dah fur theyur dayang su-ee-saad bombings!

I also think the Brits should come and help aswell.

Aww, who wornts the hay-elp of they-em inbray-ed sissis?!

Might aswell start a freaking Crusade.

Day-ang thay-et's a goooood ah-deeyur.

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, this kind of attitude is why the rest of the world has a serious dislike for your country.

Oh, and what you think we 'should' do doesn't matter one bit. Why should we continue to act like your poodle?

Oh, and what you think we 'should' do doesn't matter one bit. Why should we continue to act like your poodle?
Who is the we you are referring to Darth InSidious? Don't get me wrong, I have seen what the arrogance of the US has done in terms of the world opinion of us but that doesn't necessary apply to us exclusively. There are times when I think England is highly arrogant, at least in terms of the imperialistic ideals that were popular during the last century and a half. (My times may be obscured so don't butcher me).

Still we are discussing the issue of Iran here. The reasons why anyone does anything is often a myriad of reasons that makes the issues complicated, which is why we have such lovely discussions such as this. Throw in paranoia and the idea that everyone is out to get you and you have the potential for the pot to boil over. I know that there are nations, particularly Arab nations that have spoken out against Israel since the day it was formed and it has escalated into violent deomstrations such as the suicide bombings and the like.

I've been watching Ahmadinejad ever since he came to power. He is canny, politically savvy, and very dangerous. He has been posturing for some time and has not made his views about Israel secret. If he attacks US allies he'll undoubtedly face US forces, but I don't believe we should go in there and try to pre-emptively do something. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mossad did something, though....

Often times the best way to hide is right out in the open. We do know that he is posturing and his views are right out there. If Ahmadinejad does do something to Israel, then he might do something while putting on another front. Unfortunately something just crossed my mind just thinking about this and from SilentScope001 mentioning Russian paranoia. I would mention it but I don't want this to turn into another one of those conspiracy threads. For now it is suffice for me to keep it to myself and stew on it some more. As for Iran, probably the best thing is to wait and watch but as with Teddy Roosevelt, "just make sure you carry a big stick."

Yee-ah! Day-ang those darn Ay-rayabs to tarnation!


We shud nook 'em, jerst lark the Jay-aps 'n 'forti-faave.


Yay-ah! Day-eth to our enemays! Those dang muz-limms deezerve to dah fur theyur dayang su-ee-saad bombings!

Aww, who wornts the hay-elp of they-em inbray-ed sissis?!


Day-ang thay-et's a goooood ah-deeyur.

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, this kind of attitude is why the rest of the world has a serious dislike for your country.

Oh, and what you think we 'should' do doesn't matter one bit. Why should we continue to act like your poodle?

Umm you arnt out poodle, your our ally. But in all honestly you do what we tell you to do lol. (no offense)

Dont forget England was a very brutal country in your past. As in killing off tons of scott's, trying to rule over america and world conquest. Oh and your the only country to actually do a crusade, 3 of them I think.

Also, to back up my facts. The Muslim relgion is a very violent one. They did a fox news special on it. If you are not Muslim they tell you to become Muslim. If you dont convert they think you are a infadel and will kill you.

[nasty bigotry snipped]

/endrant
None of that is hate, it is fact.

Seriously, this kind of attitude is why the rest of the world has a serious dislike for your country.

That and we are so paranoid if any other nation even has a passing thought about acquiring nuclear weapons (Iraqi anyone). Personally I believe other nations should be paranoid about the US having possession of them. Out of the nine nations believed by most to have nuclear weapons including, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and the United States, the US is the only one to have used the destructive power of nuclear weapons on its enemy.

Don’t get me wrong, I am under the impression that the use of “Little Boy” on Hiroshima and “Fat Man” on Nagasaki saved more lives (both Allied and Japanese) than they destroyed. I would make the same decision as Harry S. Truman under the same circumstances. I just find it hypocritical of the country I love would find it necessary to have a say in what any sovereign nation does with its own resources. After all from the other side we are considered the “fanatics.”

The shame of the matter is that man is extremely proficient at destroying himself, if only we would put the same energy into the preserving life. Then maybe there would be no need to worry about the so-called fanatics.

I find Iran less of a threat than North Korea to US interest. So to me it is logical to deal with the larger threat first, but what does logic have to do with anything. I also thought it was more important to go after Osama bin Laden than Saddam Hussein and I was wrong there.

Also, to back up my facts. The Muslim relgion is a very violent one. They did a fox news special on it. If you are not Muslim they tell you to become Muslim. If you dont convert they think you are a infadel and will kill you.

[nasty bigotry snipped]

/endrant
None of that is hate, it is fact.
Thats it, you are reported. Again.

You are ignorant beyond belief and will only look through your narrow world veiw where everybody sucks if they are not part of your country. Right now you are proving to be just as violent, if not more, than the people you want to bomb so badly.

Have you ever taken a religous class? Have you ever gone and listened to an actual muslim talk about his/her religion? Have you ever been present at a class taught by a muslim? Have you ever even talked to an actual muslim before? I will guess no to all of the above considering your blatant prejudice and hatefull statements.

None of what you said was fact. You have no proof any of it is fact. So all you are showing us is hate and ignorance.

This is a debate forum. If you want to rave about how great your country is and how terrible everybody else is, find a forum where people like you like to gather.

Umm you arnt out poodle, your our ally. But in all honestly you do what we tell you to do lol. (no offense)
Nobody does what the USA says. Thats the United Nations job (In which we only ever have 1 vote out of hundreds of countries). So I think he should actually take offense to that. Saying "no offense" does not excuse a comment like that.

Well the funny thing is, because I think more conservative then you, i must be saying hate? Funny thing is, they had a special on FOX news, where they had muslims come in and say in their religion if you are not muslim and wont convert you ARE a infadel.

Thats all there is to it. We are stuck in a war that will never end. Im sorry that im not a liberal that thinks we should stay out of the middle east.

Also I didnt call for a wipe out of Iran, all i said is a nice strike on them would put them where they belong.

Dont get your panies in a bunch.

Umm you arnt out poodle, your our ally. But in all honestly you do what we tell you to do lol. (no offense)

I know several Englishmen and women who would vigorously and violently disagree with you on that point.

Dont forget England was a very brutal country in your past. As in killing off tons of scott's, trying to rule over america and world conquest. Oh and your the only country to actually do a crusade, 3 of them I think.
Anglo-Scottish War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_War) - 1513-1546
American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution) - 1776-1783
The Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade) - 1095-1291

How is what England did hundreds of years ago relevant to their actions today? It's a far, far different world now than it was then.

Also, to back up my facts. The Muslim relgion is a very violent one. They did a fox news special on it. If you are not Muslim they tell you to become Muslim. If you dont convert they think you are a infadel and will kill you.
So is this for all Muslims? If so, then explain to me why my numerous Muslim friends have never tried to convert me to Islam and have also never tried to kill me.

[nasty bigotry snipped]
I cannot even begin to describe how much your bigotry and racism angers me.

None of that is hate, it is fact.
If it is fact, then please show me reputable sources that say "Muslims are evil and should be killed."

EricJLeach, consider yourself warned. If you do not give me satisfactory reason for the hateful drivel that you spew, I will ban you.

1#: You are double posting, against the rules in the forums.

2#: You are still saying we should bomb a country and make it fall to American's will.

3#: Your sig is against forum rules as it is taking up more space than the post itself. (http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w199/EricJLeach/taliwars.jpg)

4#: You are attacking me for being a liberal when you have no proof I am.

#5: You spelled "panties" wrong.

Well im going by what MY goverment has said. As in FOX news, please go look for it on fox, muslims were telling us about their religion.
I doubt they were lying.

Also, this isnt racism they are NOT a race. So unless my goverment and the News Agencies are lying then...

Do you have any sources that aren't biased?

The Muslim relgion is a very violent one. They did a fox news special on it. If you are not Muslim they tell you to become Muslim. If you dont convert they think you are a infadel and will kill you.

My suggestion is you go to your local library and read the Koran (Qur’an) for yourself, before condemning an entire religion. I’ve read it and that is not the impression I received from its teachings. Just like the Bible you can take information out of context to make it into a book of pure evil that does promote violence against the unbeliever, but that is not the true meaning of either holy book. That is the beauty of the Bible and the Koran to the extremist element of both religions it can be misinterpreted both accidentally and purposely to support their cause. Add to that illiteracy of the masses and you have your extremist.

I did not see the story on Fox News, but I do hope a so-called news agency would not purposefully misinterpret the teachings of any religion for the sake of ratings. If they were talking about the extremist then they might be correct, but as a religion Muslim is no more violent than Christianity.

I do not tolerate bigots who spew hateful and disgustingly offensive claptrap.

Thankfully, no one will have to stand this particular one anymore.

I do not tolerate bigots who spew hateful and disgustingly offensive claptrap.

Thankfully, no one will have to stand this particular one anymore.
Thank you, and I apologize for losing my temper in my last few posts.

Anyways, maybe we can put a topic together from the remains of this thread.

Whoa, you people were busy while I was offline. :)

Let's steer this in a more positive direction.....

Questions to consider--
1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem
2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?
3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?
4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?
5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?
6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?
7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?
8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?
9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?
10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

Just a few things.....

Let's steer this in a more positive direction.....

Questions to consider--
1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem?
Iran, in it's current incarnation, is a problem. Untill the radical islamic government is brought down (preferably toppled from within, but with the help of a good push as necessary), there will continue to be a solid base of support for trouble in both Lebanon and Iraq.

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?
I'd say it's primarily the mullahs of the ruling council, Ahmadinejad and the etremists that support that government. If what is constantly reported is true, that the average Iranian is actually pro-western/US, then that would seem to be the case.

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?
This is the crux of the matter. Pakistan already has a bomb (many), but is thankfully distracted by the Indians, who also have them. I'd say that if the current regime develops nukes, it may become necessary to strike sooner than later.

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?
Iran, Syria, Russia, China and any other pro-islamicist government out there. No doubt the Rosie O'Donnels of the world would say the US (or at least its MIC) does as well.


5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?
Not sure it really matters. The old saying.....my enemy's enemy is my friend...comes to mind.


6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?
Not sure this is really relevant b/c the key is to basically control the whole region through actual power or denial (like a scorched earth policy) of oil to the developed world. Barring the second part, then the first part would be the oil producing countries (OPEC and others) and international oil traders who benefit most from a hike in prices. This could also include governments in the west whose tax revenue would increase as the taxes are often tied to a percentage of the price of gasoline sold to it's "citizens/subjects/marks/patsies (like in me and you).".

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?
Iran, the US and Israel are the most likely principals.

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?
Depends on how sane the man really is. If he really believes in the 12th(?) Imam, perhaps noone.

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?
Most obvious would be an actual missle strike into Israel from Iran (I'm thinking LOW probability here). Most likely would be seriously stepped up aid to Hamas et al to strike at Israel "remotely" (more likely). My guess is that Ahmadhinejad needs to believe that any attempt to take out Israel will mean the end of the region. If he's sane that should be enough. If not, the Chinese curse....may you live in interesting times...may end up applying.

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?
The line has already been drawn. It remains to be seen whether his opponents keeping drawing more lines or actually do something more constructive/destructive in response to his continual provocations.

This last post did raise some questions, so I thought I'd answer them. I shall attempt to remain level-headed in this.

Umm you arnt out poodle, your our ally. But in all honestly you do what we tell you to do lol. (no offense)
That's not a description of an ally. That's a description of a vassal state. What makes it worse is that you didn't even need to conquer us - our own let you do it to us.

Dont forget England was a very brutal country in your past.
And that justifies America being a brutal country now...how?
As in killing off tons of scott's,
They were hardly purges. There were rebellions, mingled with propaganda and misunderstanding and politics. And had they led to civil war, that would have been far worse.

trying to rule over america
We ruled America. I suggest you check your facts on what actually was the cause of taxation without representation. There's a lot of misunderstanding on the subject.

and world conquest.
And we were unique in that...how?

Oh and your the only country to actually do a crusade, 3 of them I think.
So...Clermont is now part of England?!

Get your facts straight. Pope Urban II called the First Crusade at Clermont in France in 1095. The main players were the French and Germans. England actually put practically nothing into the First Crusade. The Second and Third were, if I understand them correctly, really attempts to prop up the rapidly ailing Crusader States, and the Fourth Crusade was manipulated by the Doge of Venice to trash Byzantium.

First of all you are wrong, secondly, you clearly know next-to-nothing about the Crusades.

Also, to back up my facts. The Muslim relgion is a very violent one. They did a fox news special on it.
Oh, well then! It must be Gospel truth! The first rule of all journalism: There is no unbiased reporter.
If you are not Muslim they tell you to become Muslim. If you dont convert they think you are a infadel and will kill you.
That's a gross generalisation, and an attitude surrounding which there is much debate and disagreement among Muslims, as I understand. And how is killing people who don't follow your religion much different from killing people who don't follow your political model?

/endrant
None of that is hate, it is fact.
Well thank you for your input, Your Holiness!

1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem?

The nature of the problem is that a theocracy is developing nuclear weapons. (And for Achilles et al., I would be equally disturbed if Tibet, or the Vatican started developing nukes.)

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?

I think that the political structure is radicalised and I think that people in key positions are willing to use nuclear weapons.

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?

I'm not sure anything we do wouldn't only exacerbate the prolem. Switch away from oil, coal and gas.

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?

I doubt we will be entirely sure until after the current political system in Iran collapses. Politics is a shady business, no matter how you profess to conduct it.

5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?

Probably not. And I doubt Chavez really gives much of a damn about Ahmadinejad, either.

6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?

I last heard that it was the third largest producer of oil, coal and gas in the world. Anyone in control in Iran will have an increasing stranglehold on the rest of the world...

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?

The US and Iran, 'though I fear it would spread into an all out East-West conflict...

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?

Ayatollah Khamenei?

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?

No idea. I think the only solution is to switch away from oil/coal/gas and thereby rob Iran of its greatest bargaining power. I don't know what would trigger a reaction from Israel, but I suspect a good answer would be 'not much'. Although with the current problems facing Ehud Olmert, right now I doubt there's much, and I would like to think that Israel may start to be a little less jumpy from now on.

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

I don't know. Frankly, I pray we don't get to that point.

The nature of the problem is that a theocracy is developing nuclear weapons. (And for Achilles et al., I would be equally disturbed if Tibet, or the Vatican started developing nukes.) But don't forget that this particular theocracy is under the influence of a religion that indicates war or Jihad is a good thing according to the interpretations of the extremists. Yes there are wars that are fought over religion but with one where it is said that in the name of Allah kill the infidels is one I'd rather be wary of.

Fox News is actually a pretty good news source, this morning alone I saw MSNBC's news coverage doing a commentary on Iraq. They had a bunch of 'experts' I use the term loosely and it was basically who could bash President Bush the most. Seriously, when Fox News has debates concerning Iraq, they usually have people on both sides of the issue, whereas the so called unbiased MSNBC does not.

That being said, Eric's comments while many of them could be better worded, he did make some valid points.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274934,00.html)

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf)

Not sure if other media outlets aired this considering it isn't "Politically Correct" however the study speaks for itself.

The Vatican doesn't preach violence, nor does it fund suicide bombings, neither does Tibet. I'd be much less concerned about the Vatican having Nuclear potential then I am about Iran.

Fox News is actually a pretty good news source, this morning alone I saw MSNBC's news coverage doing a commentary on Iraq. They had a bunch of 'experts' I use the term loosely and it was basically who could bash President Bush the most. Seriously, when Fox News has debates concerning Iraq, they usually have people on both sides of the issue, whereas the so called unbiased MSNBC does not.
The fact that MSNBC sucks doesn't negate the fact that Fox News sucks.

Question, though, JMAC, is whether it sucks b/c it's consistently incorrect in its reporting or b/c its "slant/ideology" isn't in alignment w/its critics? I've noticed this tendency, as has Prime, that many of us label sources as crappy w/o really showing why they are so beyond perhaps personal biases. What exactly is your "axe to grind" w/FOX in particular (GarfieldJL has at least indicated his problem with MSNBC et al)?

I have a problem with most news sources in general. They've been turned into sources of profit for the corporations that own them, they've given up on actual investigative journalism, instead reporting on frivolous garbage. However, at least most news agencies have the decency to just be lazy, whereas Fox goes the extra mile to misinform people and reduce debate to several red faced idiots screaming at each other for 30 minutes.

To be blunt, Fox News actually does its own investigative reporting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276355,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/americas)

The fact Fox News isn't lazy is why they didn't report those bogus pictures in the Israeli/Lebanon war as the gospel truth, they took the time to check them and discovered they were fraudulent and reported it as such.

What a crap example. It's the equivilent of the unlucky reporter who gets stuck with having to stand in a hurricane and say it's windy out. And not reporting those "bogus pictures" is their job. They shouldn't be praised for something like that - I'm not letting them off the hook just because most news organizations don't have journalistic standards.

You misunderstand, they reported the fact that the pictures were bogus, when other news agencies were reporting the bogus pictures as though it was the gospel truth.

Fox News also went after CBS when they aired the story with the bogus documents less than two months before the Presidential Elections of 04. That hardly sounds like someone whom isn't doing a good job on reporting now does it?

News is biased. No news station is politically neutral because nobody would watch it. The closest damn thing I have found to a politically neutral news program would be Daily Show and the Colbert Report... and they are both on comedy central.

We could debate this to the end ofthe earth, but the fact of the matter is we cannot convince eachother to change news station by simply debating. I am not pointing a finger at any one person, but once a kool-aid drinker almost always a kool-aid drinker (You can look up the meaning of that is you'd like). Lets get back onto the topic at hand instead of debating which news station is more "accurate."

Let's see if we can derail this bigoted flame war.

1. is Iran a problem, and if so, what is the nature of the problem

It's leader for his unabashed hatred for Israel and the Jews, then appearing all buddy buddy.

2. Assuming Iran is a problem, is it the entire country, or is it the ruling council, or just Ahmadinejad?

I'm sure there would be Iranians that share his views, but in a sense it's much like Iraq in that the problem wasn't the country, it was Saddam.

3. What should be done if Iran develops nukes, if anything?

Israel has the right to first strike against threats to their nation, something they would undoubtably use if this happened. If Iran are close bring in Patriot missile defence systems to Israel, as well as further bolstering of Israel's military with American hardware (Apache helicopters, F15s, ect).

4. What countries benefit from Ahmadinejad remaining in power?

I would argue terrorism that is funded by Iran, specifically Palestinion terrorists who are reward by killing Israelis, but someone might prove diffirently.

5. Does Ahmadinejad really like Hugo Chavez?

There's a bit of a diffirence between liking and allying with, and if there is any sort of alligience then certainly action should be taken. War? We'd be stretching ourselves pretty thin with Afghanistan and Iraq already.

6. How much oil does their country produce, and who has the most to gain/lose from a potential war there?

This is one of the big problems with going to war, we'll have the "all about the oil" arguements all over again.

7. If there is a war, who would be the likely principals?

Defending Israel, which wouldn't fly well given the hatred held towards Israel. What other principals could there be?

8. Who has the best chance of getting Ahmadinejad to settle down?

CIA style room service? Seriously if the UN have voted for Israel's right to exist then a united coalition against Ahmadinejad would have a good chance of having him back off, as I picture him as wanting to look good, politically good. If he loses support for his intentions with Israel, and if he knows he would lose by going to war with them (which he would if he knew that by going to war with Israel it would bring in America and it's allies to turn his country into the newest Middle Eastern parking lot) then he would want to scrape back support.

9. Is Ahmadinejad serious about his views on Israel? If so, what, if anything, should be done? What actions would trigger a reaction from Israel?

As much of a these comments make him I think he's smart enough to know that any action against Israel would be his doom. I think he's bluffing, trying to act big, but at the same time maybe hopes to draw support from others, Syria perhaps, so that he can act. How would Israel respond? We saw last year with their bombing of Lebanon, they would exercise their right to first strike against threats to their nation.

10. Is there a point at which Ahmadinejad needs to be stopped, and if so, where does the line in the sand get drawn?

I'm wondering if maybe that line had already been crossed, people can't say the sort of things he does and support the things he does, Palestinion terrorists, anti Jew\anti American sentiment. As for stopping him, what do you have in mind? Politically censoring him? Removal from office? Forcing an election? Assassination? War?

And yeah, the bigotry, FFSFTS.

Nancy the United States doesn't buy oil from Iran.

As far as Iran sponsoring terrorism they are known sponsors of Hamas and Hezbollah among other groups. They are also supplying IEDs to insurgents in Iraq, in addition to training if not their own special forces attacking US troops in Iraq. It is believed Iran recently tried to bomb Saudi Arabia's oil wells with a 9/11 style attack.

Ahmadinejad has called for the total annihilation of Israel and said the holocaust never happened. Israel to be blunt is an ally of the United States and I'm not certain but I think Israel is an ally of several European Countries. Not sure about the European Countries but the United States will act to defend its allies. My Grandfather was one of the US soldiers to liberate concentration camps in World War II.

Concerning the News front, I watched the Republican Debate on CNN last night and they did a much better job than I expected them to, granted I had extremely low expectations. They didn't do quite as good of a job as Fox News did in my opinion, but they did a lot better than MSNBC did. One has to consider the media in all this, because the media is where people typically get their information concerning what is going on in the world. The reason I trust Fox News is because in all honesty they are held to a much higher standard than the other media outlets. This was demonstrated in 2004 with the fraudulent memos that Dan Rather used to try to slander the President of the United States. The only major media outlet that went after CBS was Fox News. Fox News went after CBS concerning this immediantly, bloggers called into question the authenticity of the memos practically before the 60 Minutes II piece ended. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CNN all didn't call into question the authenticity of the memos which by the way were in a Font that wasn't even in use when the Memos were supposedly written. Even if the memos were scanned and then printed, the original font would have been preserved because scans usually are in image format. It's been demonstrated that other news agencies will immediantly jump on Fox News whenever they get the chance trying to discredit them, often shooting themselves in the foot because Fox News actually did research. So that's why I trust Fox News more than other media outlets (including the BBC and CBC (example 2006 Lebanon/Israeli Conflict)).

You misunderstand, they reported the fact that the pictures were bogus, when other news agencies were reporting the bogus pictures as though it was the gospel truth.

Fox News also went after CBS when they aired the story with the bogus documents less than two months before the Presidential Elections of 04. That hardly sounds like someone whom isn't doing a good job on reporting now does it?
As I said before, other news agencies not doing their jobs does not let Fox off the hook. And fact checking isn't an example of fine investigative journalism.

Other news organizations aren't the only ones who make mistakes such as that anyway, airing "news" segments produced by the Bush administration verbatim is far from adhering to the standards they should be held to.

What about getting back on topic (Iran) ?

If you wish to discuss journalism practices/bias, feel free to start a new thread :)

America not buying oil from Iran, that would ark up the anti war crowd on the issue of oil even more.

Iran sponsering terrorism? That would figure. What do we do about it though?

The Holocaust, frankly it pisses me off that people denied it happened. I half believe Shin Bet should take action. In fact, on Ahmadinejad I'm surprised they haven't tried anything.

More likely they are posturing, playing "chicken" as it were. It is like coming toe to toe and trying to see which one blinks first. We've had other situations that are similar like during the Cuban missile crisis. It is a tactic that never fails to get people aroused. The suspense builds and then you are waiting until one decides to make a move.