On 24 May 2007 16:02:25 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A8362A78BFfreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:4lfb53l6k0vogj5bot44qgkkoilbscdvim@4ax.com:

On 24 May 2007 13:36:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A6AAF2481Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:jv6b53dicecch8rh4r2bvaqhi39grl1gng@4ax.com:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:39:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ece7$0$12494$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:72p9535p8584qjita4vae0gmbcq3pkncm2@4ax.com...

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:19:45 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654da23$0$1371$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:

"Infinity! " <Alpha_Omega_@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in message
news:feOdncXd4ajEzsnbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com...
Thus Spake Infinity:


NOTE: June 5, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative

*Attacking the Islamic Republic would mean steep costs and
uncertain
victory*

by Charles V. Peña

If gas breaking the $3/gallon barrier could dominate the
evening
news and
send Congress into a frenzy, imagine Americans' horror if oil,
now
$75/barrel,
suddenly tops $200.

Neither our political will nor our wallets are prepared, but
a few
stalled
SUVs may be the least of our concerns if the U.S. makes good on
its threats against Iran.

On April 10, President Bush drew his line in the sand: "We
do not
want the
Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear
weapon or the knowledge about how to make a nuclear weapon."

Well, The next day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
declared that
his country _had_ joined countries with nuclear technology by
successfully
enriching uranium...
---> http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_05/feature.html

------------------------------------------------------------------

-

-

-

---------------

That's right, accept massive, even nuclear Iranian-caused
bloodshed for oil.
The new lib cry, "Blood for oil!"

Huh?

What's not get Matt? You have a lefty out in front of the pack,
already crying about how high the price of oil will be if we make an
effort to stop the mad hatter of Teheran. Clearly the price of oil
is more important than the price in blood that will be payed if he's
allowed to acquire nukes. I've heard this same meme from other libs.

I guess I should just call you a fascist (since name calling and
such is the approved mechanism) who thinks that somehow it is wrong
to face reality when making decisions. Attacking Iran will mean a
massive cut in the flow of oil and dramatic increases in prices. If
the attack is worth that then say so. But it is foolish to attack
the speaker because you don't like the implications of the facts.

That's right, Matt, attack the speaker because *you* don't like the
implications of the facts.

Except that I did not such thing. I used the term "fascist" explicitly
to complain about his usage of terms such as "lefty".

You went much further than that. You brought in your usual arsenal of
strawmen as usual.

What strawmen? (Forget even the "usual".) The original comment was
about attacking Iran

On 24 May 2007 16:02:25 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993A8362A78BFfreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:4lfb53l6k0vogj5bot44qgkkoilbscdvim@4ax.com:

On 24 May 2007 13:36:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns993A6AAF2481Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:jv6b53dicecch8rh4r2bvaqhi39grl1gng@4ax.com:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:39:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654ece7$0$12494$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message
news:72p9535p8584qjita4vae0gmbcq3pkncm2@4ax.com...

On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:19:45 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Fester"
<not@home.com> in <4654da23$0$1371$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
wrote:

"Infinity! " <Alpha_Omega_@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in message
news:feOdncXd4ajEzsnbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com...
Thus Spake Infinity:


NOTE: June 5, 2006 Issue
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative

*Attacking the Islamic Republic would mean steep costs and
uncertain
victory*

by Charles V. Peña

If gas breaking the $3/gallon barrier could dominate the
evening
news and
send Congress into a frenzy, imagine Americans' horror if oil,
now
$75/barrel,
suddenly tops $200.

Neither our political will nor our wallets are prepared,
but a few
stalled
SUVs may be the least of our concerns if the U.S. makes good
on its threats against Iran.

On April 10, President Bush drew his line in the sand: "We
do not
want the
Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a
nuclear weapon or the knowledge about how to make a nuclear
weapon."

Well, The next day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
declared that
his country _had_ joined countries with nuclear technology by
successfully
enriching uranium...
---> http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_05/feature.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

-

-

-

-

---------------

That's right, accept massive, even nuclear Iranian-caused
bloodshed for oil.
The new lib cry, "Blood for oil!"

Huh?

What's not get Matt? You have a lefty out in front of the pack,
already crying about how high the price of oil will be if we make
an effort to stop the mad hatter of Teheran. Clearly the price of
oil is more important than the price in blood that will be payed
if he's allowed to acquire nukes. I've heard this same meme from
other libs.

I guess I should just call you a fascist (since name calling and
such is the approved mechanism) who thinks that somehow it is
wrong to face reality when making decisions. Attacking Iran will
mean a massive cut in the flow of oil and dramatic increases in
prices. If the attack is worth that then say so. But it is foolish
to attack the speaker because you don't like the implications of
the facts.

That's right, Matt, attack the speaker because *you* don't like the
implications of the facts.

Except that I did not such thing. I used the term "fascist"
explicitly to complain about his usage of terms such as "lefty".

You went much further than that. You brought in your usual arsenal of
strawmen as usual.

What strawmen? (Forget even the "usual".) The original comment was
about attacking Iran and the subsequent rise in prices. I agree that
an attack on Iran would lead to a rise in prices. You can well
disagree, but that is not a strawman claim.

The fact is that Iran is gearing up for
massive nuclear-back terrorism, and you're using their meager
production of oil as an excuse to delay dealing with their
belligerence until it's too late.

So what specifically should we do and what results do you expect
from that action?

Escalation of sanctions seems to be very likely, now that Sarkozy is
willing to turn against elBaradei's appeasement of Iran at the IAEA.

Iran will escalate their belligerence, and probably encourage their
terrorist proxies to attack Israel again.

It's just too bad that the traitors at ABC will get away with blowing
the covert ops mission in Iran. That had real potential to establish
contact with dissident groups inside Iran. Now it's useless.

And, again, what actions do you recommend and what results do you
expect? Do you think that they will fold in the face of sanctions or
are you calling for stronger action and if so what? This is an
opportunity for a real argument Fred: present your position rather
than attack me. My view is that attacking Iran will be far costlier,
far more deadly, far worse, than attacking Iraq. Iran is a harder
target geographically, their armed force are stronger and more
determined and more loyal, and the people far more unified. The
desired targets are harder to find and harder to take out. So, again,
what do you recommend and what results do you expect?