You're joking right? You just adapted this from some university professor's lecture.

Actually if you substitute "My administration" for "the Islamic Republic of Iran" and it sounds like something Barry might have delivered.

I'm feeling lazy today. Someone else dig up a link to the comparisons between Al Gore's book and the Unibomber's manifesto. You know the one I mean -- the one that gives a quote, then you have to guess which one it came from.

J.

http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html

Harder than I thought. I only scored 50% and I really was trying.

Creepily congruent.

Hussein's anti semitism is coming home to roost!

Jim, that was intended as rhetorical...

But thanks anyway.

J.

I typed "is coming"? Should be "has come". Sorry Barry!

"Is it merely coincidence?"

Nope, just another pandering to the 'peace loving' leftists.

Too bad we don't have a president with the balls to threaten to make Tehran another Hiroshima.

The difference is that the Iranian says it to pander to pacifist leftards to cover for his governments desire to incinerate Israel. Meanwhile, Obama says it because he truly believes the US to be an evil nation "whether we like it or not"...

How different is this guy's nuclear disarmament goals from Obama's?

Easy. He's less anti-American.

Accchhhhmadimmmijihad writes the script, Barry carrys out the plot.

Easy: The primary differences are: (1) that the Iranian leadership hates Jews a lot less than Obama (Iran's beef is with Israel as a nation-state, not necessarily with the entire Jewish religion and culture); (2) the Iranian leadership actually is much less dangerous to America's long-term geopolitical interests.

"Too bad we don't have a president with the balls to threaten to make Tehran another Hiroshima."

Are you serious? This is what you think makes sense?

Ryan, would you prefer a nuclear attack on some city (preferrably the one in which you live) to a preemptive strike on Iran? If you think they want peace, it is the peace of Islam. Where all worship Allah. If you do not understand what they are up to shut the f*ck up and get out of the way. I wonder why this Iranian dick does not show pictures of the rape of Nanking. Chinese babys stuck on Japanese bayonets. Heard an appology from the Japanese yet?

"If you do not understand what they are up to shut the f*ck up and get out of the way."

Ah, so what ARE they, Zels? Are you able to determine the character of millions of people? That's quite a magical ability you have there.

So whatever happened with solidarity for the Iranian people who are fighting for democracy? F*ck em? So you're saying that 8.4 million people in the city of Tehran should pay for the shitty authoritarian government that rules over them? You don't think there's any need to differentiate between Iranian civilians and, for example, the political tool who is responsible for the above speech?

"I wonder why this Iranian dick does not show pictures of the rape of Nanking. Chinese babys stuck on Japanese bayonets. Heard an appology from the Japanese yet?"

The speech above by Jalili is pure political BS, IMO--that's pretty easy to see. Still, I think some of you folks start freaking out and overreacting when you bring up nuclear warfare. It might make sense to separate the civilians from the asinine leadership in this case. It's not as if there is 100% consensus with the regime, you know.

Ryan, a little lesson for you. Governments exist at the consensus of the governed, therefore have the ultimate responsiblity for the acts of that government. Not all Germans were Nazis. However since they allowed the government of Hitler to continue, they were held responsible. If Iran is allowed to develope a nuclear weapon and they use it (which they promised they will, on Israel), what would you think would be an proper response?

"If Iran is allowed to develope a nuclear weapon and they use it (which they promised they will, on Israel), what would you think would be an proper response?"

A strongly worded letter of reprimand from the UN?

/sarc off

"Ryan, a little lesson for you. Governments exist at the consensus of the governed, therefore have the ultimate responsiblity for the acts of that government."

I don't think you understand the difference between a democracy and an authoritarian government. So please avoid the free lessons on politics if you aren't willing to pay attention to basic definitions. To use Iraq as a recent example: Do you think that Saddam Hussein ruled by consensus of the Iraqi people? Do a little reading about the Kurds and the Shiites under Hussein, and then get back to me.

If you are talking about a democratically elected government, it might very well be argued that the population is accountable for what its government does. But dictatorships and authoritarian regimes? That's some slippery territory you're entering into. In some cases it makes sense to parse out the ruled from the rulers. But there are probably mere pesky details in your complex vision of geopolitics...

Just a side question: Do you characterize Iran as a functioning representative democracy?

"Not all Germans were Nazis. However since they allowed the government of Hitler to continue, they were held responsible."

You're arguing that all German citizens were held accountable for the actions of the National Socialist Party, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with what the Nazis did? Where do you get this information from???