So you don’t take Iran at its word? You think they’re bluffing, right?

Nukes are for pussies? I guess that explains why the mad mullahs want them so bad. I thought it was because they wanted to” vomit the Zionist entity from the region” or something like that. More of the overheated rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton said the other day that we could not allow Iran to get nukes. Just another boy soldier I guess.

But then again, the Iranians hang homosexuals, behead unwed mothers, support the slaughter of not only our soldiers but civilians from Lebanon to Iraq, not to mention taking embassies by force..but since they are on the opposite side of the Christians, then they must be the good guys.

I tell you what, why don’t you emigrate and run your mouth over there. I hear they lock up and torture bloggers in Iran.

I don’t know if Bush is going to attack Iran or not but if they would stop promising genocide and mayhem people might not be so nervous about their intentions.

And from what I hear there are a lot of people in Iran who would not mind seeing the mullahs gone. I know that is hard for a terrorist loving little leftie like you to understand.

Unless they are provoked, I doubt they’ll ever attack Israel.

If they are provoked, though, tiny, defenseless Israel is their most likely target.

Is that clearer?

You said: “Tel Aviv can be destroyed by Iran’s conventional weapons”

and PA said: “Not before Tehran becomes a glazed parking lot though.”

and you said: “Nice to know the crazy Christians and the wingnut boy soldiers are now willing to admit they’d sacrifice all the Jews of Israel for a chance to kill a few Muslims, PA.”

At which point I observed that he hadn’t said anything about being willing to “sacrifice all the Jews” to “kill a few Muslims”, but rather had expressed confidence that we would respond to them attacking Israel. I suggested that was a distortion of his argument and so naturally it was easy to make it look a silly argument – the so-called “straw man” argument. I then suggested that your own position would leave the Isreali’s fate to the whim of the Iranians – a charge you chose not to respond to at all.

Instead, your response to me is a debate about the efficacy of using air strikes to hit Iran’s nuclear program, something I suspect PA wasn’t even talking about (as he had responded to your suggestion of Iran hitting Isreal conventionally) and I was certainly not addressing.

So in that vein, I will conclude by saying that you are dead wrong about space aliens stepping in at the last minute to broker a truce. And you are also wrong about the Iranian’s biggest gripe with us being our abject failure to produce a CGI-animated Care Bears movie. I don’t know where you get these ideas.

Everybody knows the U.S. can’t stop Iran from developing nukes (if they are indeed devolping them) with impotent air strikes.

They only effect they’d have is securing the Mullahs reign for another generation or two.

The only people advocating them are defense contractors and war porn addicts, and they don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone else, especially the Israelis.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

It seemed to me he was saying that we could respond and prevent a conventional attack from continuing. If I wanted to join you making straw men, I could say that it sounds like you advocate leaving the fate of Israel entirely in the hands of Iran. Which I could call reprehensible in light of the public statements Iran has made vis a vis their plans for Israel.