Fuck those barbarians

[Liberal]

@Evil Captor

Oh, yeah. Like the Americans didn’t roll over and spread 'em for the Patriot Act.

Damn. I agree with you.

[FinnAgain]

Squink, although that’s a good effort, I think it’s better for idiots like this schmuck to be ignored or shouted down. Do you really think that someone who hasn’t read a damn thing about the issue he’s trying to debate really cares about the truth? He is, at best, an ignorant drunken schmuck who likes seeing himself type and at worst a shill and an intellectual whore.

I am sick to death of fucking handwavers who refuse to learn a damn thing and yet think that if they can open their mouths wide enough they’ll have a valid position. I am sick of people jumping into debate threads on the Dope and then saying “Um, so would someone tell me what’s going on? I can’t be bothered to read anything, ever, but you are all still wrong.”

I don’t think we should encourage such nearly-trollish behavior.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Precisely as I predicted.

FYI for the future, assuming your arrogant stupidity doesn’t cause you to walk in front of a bus, when you’re in a DEBATE, and you make a specific statement of fact that the other side refutes, it falls to YOU to prove your statement correct.

There are two reasons for this, both of which might be new to you.

One is good manners. You are given the choice of either sharing the source of your knowledge (which in your case pleading ignorance might be a valid defense) or retracting your mis-statement.

The other has to do with the rules of logic. One cannot prove a negative. So it falls to you to show that what you state is actually correct.

And that means in the real world, not in some, fetid, diseased, weak mass that might reside between your ears.

Let me give you an easy example. If in a debate I said that Michael Moore was a pedophile and a member of NAMBLA (I’m trying to make it easy and use terms you might be familiar with), and you didn’t think that to be the case, it would then fall to me to either show proof of Michael Moore fondling and sodomizing young boys and a membership list from NAMBLA, or retract my ridiculous statement.

Now go ahead, rant away without supplying the cites and prove me right. AGAIN!!

Precisely as predicted out of tools like you, like **Squink ** showed, the evidence is just a few clicks away, it is amazing that you are not realizing that requesting to get the information spoon-fed to you does show in spades the fetid, diseased, weak mass that DOES reside between your ears.

[Squink]

@Liberal

Yes, one can.

There is no pie in my house.

[Liberal]

@Squink

There is no pie in my house.

In that case, I won’t taunt you with my delicious fat slice of Oreo cream pie.

[Squink]

@FinnAgain

Squink, although that’s a good effort, I think it’s better for idiots like this schmuck to be ignored or shouted down…

Sure, I like a good schmuck beating as well as anyone, but there are other folks reading the thread who are not idiots, yet may not have seen the cite of which you were speaking. Rather than leave things ever so slightly up in the air with them, I thought it better to drive a nail into the coffin.

Dangit Liberal, It’s too hot to bake pie today, and I want some. Perhaps there is pie in the garage…

[Evil_Captor]

@Liberal

Damn. I agree with you.

All right. Rather than rethink my position, I’ll accept this as one of those odd coincidences that happens sometimes.

[FinnAgain]

@Squink

Sure, I like a good schmuck beating as well as anyone, but there are other folks reading the thread who are not idiots, yet may not have seen the cite of which you were speaking. Rather than leave things ever so slightly up in the air with them, I thought it better to drive a nail into the coffin.

Squink, you are absolutely right and your course of action shows wisdom. Some schmucks just make my blood boil, so I’m glad that there are calmer heads around to smack 'em with a cite once I’m done being disgusted by their vociferous idiocy and shrill ignorance.

[magellan01]

@FinnAgain

Squink, although that’s a good effort, I think it’s better for idiots like this schmuck to be ignored or shouted down. Do you really think that someone who hasn’t read a damn thing about the issue he’s trying to debate really cares about the truth? He is, at best, an ignorant drunken schmuck who likes seeing himself type and at worst a shill and an intellectual whore.

I am sick to death of fucking handwavers who refuse to learn a damn thing and yet think that if they can open their mouths wide enough they’ll have a valid position. I am sick of people jumping into debate threads on the Dope and then saying “Um, so would someone tell me what’s going on? I can’t be bothered to read anything, ever, but you are all still wrong.”

I don’t think we should encourage such nearly-trollish behavior.

I understand why you get so upet when someone points out that you might be wrong. You’ve no doubt been like this all your life and deep down you know that what you try to project as intelligence is just bravado, and you’re afraid that people we see through it and you’ll be revealed to be the weak mind that you are. This is usually the case with big mouths.

But thanks for proving my point AGAIN!!! And here’s another opportunity. (I hope your peanut gallery is paying attention so they can learn a little more about your weakness, and possibly learn something else in the process.)

To refresh your memory, here’s just one of the issues on which you have so far failed:

You said:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain
"…legalized and handwaved torture and rape…"

And I asked you to where you got that idea from:

"Cite? Particularly the “legalized” part."

And you stil haven’t done it. The article supplied by Squink may go to the handwaving, but not the “legalising”. So, I’m left with a few possible reasons why you have brought forth a cite.

1. You’re lazy, except when it comes to babbling out of oyur pie hole on your keyboard
2. You’re embarrassed. You know the idea exists only in your mind and the mind’s of other Bush Haters
3. You dumb. You don’t know how a debate operates, yet for some reason, you joined a debate board
4. You’re a pussy. And not man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Even you’re backtracking on your “conding rape” claim was half-assed
5. You’re realistic. You know the cite doesn’t exist in the real world and www.insideFinnAgain’sshitforbrainshead doesn’t take you anywhere.

As far as being able to prove a negative, rather than ttrying to adopt an interesting but somewhat tortured argument that will lead to the existence of God, how about some Logic 101, courtesy of http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~pinsky/logic.htm:

Fallacies of Relevance

1. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem): an attempt to divert attention away from the evidence in favor of an attack on the person stating the premise
2. Appeal to Audience Bias (Ad Populem): an emotional appeal to the presumed attitudes or beliefs of an audience, under the assumption that the need for evidence is irrelevant
3. Red Herring: an attempt to avoid the central issue of an argument by sidetracking, that is, changing the subject or digressing onto a tangential point
4. Appeal to Authority: an argument based on the assumption that an authority outside a particular field is a qualified expert on the matters in question
5. Appeal to Ignorance (Proving a Negative): an argument that asserts a claim is true because no one can prove it is wrong; this shifts the burden of proof to the audience or opponent rather than the claimant
6. Sentimental Appeal: a faulty emotional appeal, often using pity or fear, designed to provoke an audience to divert attention or in lieu of evidence
7. Non-Sequitur: an argument in which a conclusion fails to follow logically or coherently from the given premises

I would pay particular attention to #s 1, 2, 3, 4 (Liberal), and 5 (!!!).

Bonus lesson: Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are automatically wrong. And it doesn’t help to assume what your opponent may or may not have read, or who they voted for, or the degree to which they may be an asshole. Because you’ll often be wrong and reveal your mental dishonesty and weakness.

And just for the record shit-for brains, my original response wasn’t even directed at you. You jumped in, which would be fine if you weren’t just interested in yappin’ away and huddling together with you ideological cohorts for protection.

Okay girls, circle the wagons.

Warning: Unless you step up to the debating table like a man and either provide the cites requested or retract your asinine statements, I will not respond to you. And that means no more lessons!

So, go ahead, prove me right AGAIN!!!

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

I understand why you get so upet when someone points out that you might be wrong. You’ve no doubt been like this all your life and deep down you know that what you try to project as intelligence is just bravado, and you’re afraid that people we see through it and you’ll be revealed to be the weak mind that you are. This is usually the case with big mouths.

But thanks for proving my point AGAIN!!! And here’s another opportunity. (I hope your peanut gallery is paying attention so they can learn a little more about your weakness, and possibly learn something else in the process.)

To refresh your memory, here’s just one of the issues on which you have so far failed:

You said:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain
"…legalized and handwaved torture and rape…"

And I asked you to where you got that idea from:

"Cite? Particularly the “legalized” part."

And you stil haven’t done it. The article supplied by Squink may go to the handwaving, but not the “legalising”. So, I’m left with a few possible reasons why you have brought forth a cite.

1. You’re lazy, except when it comes to babbling out of oyur pie hole on your keyboard
2. You’re embarrassed. You know the idea exists only in your mind and the mind’s of other Bush Haters
3. You dumb. You don’t know how a debate operates, yet for some reason, you joined a debate board
4. You’re a pussy. And not man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Even you’re backtracking on your “conding rape” claim was half-assed
5. You’re realistic. You know the cite doesn’t exist in the real world and www.insideFinnAgain’sshitforbrainshead doesn’t take you anywhere.

As far as being able to prove a negative, rather than ttrying to adopt an interesting but somewhat tortured argument that will lead to the existence of God, how about some Logic 101, courtesy of http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~pinsky/logic.htm:

I would pay particular attention to #s 1, 2, 3, 4 (Liberal), and 5 (!!!).

Bonus lesson: Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are automatically wrong. And it doesn’t help to assume what your opponent may or may not have read, or who they voted for, or the degree to which they may be an asshole. Because you’ll often be wrong and reveal your mental dishonesty and weakness.

And just for the record shit-for brains, my original response wasn’t even directed at you. You jumped in, which would be fine if you weren’t just interested in yappin’ away and huddling together with you ideological cohorts for protection.

Okay girls, circle the wagons.

Warning: Unless you step up to the debating table like a man and either provide the cites requested or retract your asinine statements, I will not respond to you. And that means no more lessons!

So, go ahead, prove me right AGAIN!!!

1. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem): an attempt to divert attention away from the evidence in favor of an attack on the person stating the premise

Professor magellan01’s entire post is therefore useless. QED

[Scott_Plaid]

You don’t have to repost the whole thing, you know. You could just say something like:

@magellan01

<snip>1) You’re lazy, except when it comes to babbling out of oyur pie hole on your keyboard</snip>

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

1. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem): an attempt to divert attention away from the evidence in favor of an attack on the person stating the premise

Professor magellan01’s entire post is therefore useless. QED

As useless as a wheel is–to a monkey.

[Scott_Plaid]

I think that Finn and GIGObuster have made a very good case for your taking two seconds to use google. Why don’t you?

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

oyur pie hole

!?!

As useless as a wheel is–to a monkey.

Wrong on that count too, you sorry sailor that could not finish his trip:

http://www.monkeybike.co.uk/index.html
In any case, it is the barbarian Iranians what we are talking here, this conversation then drifted to the barbarians that condoned torture and rape in the jails.

I do think that some perpetrators are being punished, but it is telling that without photographic or video evidence that few bothered to stop it, and when at last the worse evidence is released, it is likely to show others involved that have not been brought to justice. Together, with the efforts to keep the worse under wraps, shows that to say that this administration is condoning torture and rape is not a stretch.

[magellan01]

@Scott Plaid

I think that Finn and GIGObuster have made a very good case for your taking two seconds to use google. Why don’t you?

If you’ve read the thread and cannot glean the reason, I cannot help you.

P.S. What did you think of my advice from about a week ago in the pit? Good? Bad? Helpful?

[FinnAgain]

@magellan01

I understand why you get so upet when someone points out that you might be wrong.

No… I get upset when someone who can’t be bothered to do any reading before a debate shoots his mouth off as if it’s worth a damn thing. In this case, that’d be you.

@magellan01

and you’ll be revealed to be the weak mind that you are. This is usually the case with big mouths.

Ironic, n’est pas?

@magellan01

But thanks for proving my point AGAIN!!!

What, that since you couldn’t get off your ass and read before you started masturbating all over your keyboard that I view you as a shitstain ignorant loudmouthed fuck and I refuse to cater to you? If you really want, you can prove that point yet AGAIN! WHEE! I’M USING ALL CAPS LIKE A MOTHERFUCK!

@magellan01

You’re lazy,

Let’s go to the scorecard, shall we?
Why, I do declare!
One of us did the reasearch and reading before opening this thread,* the other* is an ignorant shitmunching loquacious idiot who’s too lazy to do any reading before, or for that matter, after getting into a debate.
Again spunky, three guesses as to which one of us is which.

Please do not misinterpret my utter disdain and contempt for intellectual whores like you as ennui.

@magellan01

You’re embarrassed. You know the idea exists only in your mind and the mind’s of other Bush Haters

Right. The documents which exist all over the place, and which you could still find by using the google terms I’ve given you? They only exist in my head. Fucking apologist handwaver. Why don’t you go back to licking Bush’s ass so that you can munch the next turd that he drops?

@magellan01

You dumb. You don’t know how a debate operates, yet for some reason, you joined a debate board

Again, fool, I know perfectly well how a debate works. I simply believe that you’re a tiny step up from a troll. You’re an ignorant fuck who hasn’t read anything, won’t read anyting, and yet still thinks that your opinion matters.

It takes two to debate. Not one person who knows what he’s talking about and another who can’t be bothered to google anything.

@magellan01

You’re a pussy. And not man enough to admit when you’re wrong. Even you’re backtracking on your “conding rape” claim was half-assed

How would you know if I’m wrong or not? You have no idea what the facts are because you refuse to read before or after getting into a debate. And by the way liar, I haven’t backtracked on anything.

In any case, following Squink’s lead, I’ll provide a cite for those who are reading along. I do not want you, you ignorant fuck, to think that this means I am in any way, shape, or form rewarding you for being an ignorant fool.

Here’s a cite for how our military is handwaving away the rapes of our own servicewomen by male GI’s.

And here’s one about systemic abuse in US prisons in Iraq.

And here’s one that our handwaving apologist couldn’t even be bothered to google when I gave him the search terms.

[

A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture

](http://www.sundayherald.com/43796)

And of course, there are stories like this:

[

In one statement, a prisoner tells how he witnessed a US army translator raping an Iraqi boy, aged somewhere between 15 and 18. Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, prisoner number 151108, says a female soldier took photographs of the rape. Sheets had been hung to block the prisoners’ view, but Mr Hilas says he heard the boy’s screams and climbed a door to see what was going on. “The kid was hurting very bad,” his statement reads. <snip>

Compelling evidence is emerging that responsibility for the abuse goes right to the Pentagon, where an ultra-secret “black operation” was set up to run the interrogation process. This unit, under the direction of Stephen Cambone, under-secretary of defence for intelligence, reportedly used theories developed by an academic to guide the torture of the detainees.

The book, The Arab Mind by the late cultural anthropologist Raphael Patai, includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, stating that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation. Patai’s book was described by The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh as providing an intellectual and practical underpinning of the culture of torture at Abu Ghraib. Another alleged victim of the orchestrated abuse tells how American soldiers held him down and sodomised him with a truncheon. This prisoner is not being named because he was the alleged victim of a sexual assault.

](http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/05-22d-04.htm)

@magellan01

You’re realistic. You know the cite doesn’t exist in the real world and www.insideFinnAgain’sshitforbrainshead doesn’t take you anywhere.

Again, let me give you the real reason:

6. I find you loathesome and revolting. Your willful ignorance coupled with a desire to be a loud shrill tool regardless of your ignorance is repugnant. You are an intellectual whore and a piece of shit, and I do not believe that those a cut above trolls should be encouraged. You, are scum.

@magellan01

Bonus lesson: Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are automatically wrong. And it doesn’t help to assume what your opponent may or may not have read

Dishonest piece of shit. You claimed that there was some ammount of uncertainty about Bush blocking investigations. Either you know that was a lie and thus you were trolling, or you didn’t know it and you were an ignorant fuck who should’ve stayed out of the debate until you’d educated yourself. Which is it?

@magellan01

. Because you’ll often be wrong and reveal your mental dishonesty and weakness.

My intuition is pretty strong, I’ll take my chances with a shitlicker like you.

@magellan01

my original response wasn’t even directed at you.

So you posted on a message board… and someone responded to you!?! Jesus, you’re right, I’m way out of line.

@magellan01

Warning: Unless you step up to the debating table like a man and either provide the cites requested or retract your asinine statements, I will not respond to you. And that means no more lessons!

Actually, I’d prefer if you’d go back to sodomizing corpses and stop posting.
Consider it a personal request.

@magellan01

So, go ahead, prove me right AGAIN!!!

OMG LOL ROFL!!!oneone111!!!

[The_King_of_Soup]

I’ve been reading this thread and trying hard to believe that no one here is over the age of 35, or has ever read a book.

Iran is currently a repressive theocracy. Before 1979, it was a democratic utopia – oh, wait. No it wasn’t. It was a repressive monarchy armed and coddled by the United States. Can anybody say "Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and his group of merry men, SAVAK? Try this, for starters: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

The current regime, based on Sharia law, is harsher than should be expected. The previous regime, that it has replaced, was a dictatorship where one man’s word was the only law and torture and death were the norm for arbitrarily designated enemies of the republic. The next regime, for better or worse, will be different again. The question for us (the U.S., I mean) is, with whom shall we make friends, given that we don’t want yet another war? I think the youngsters will tend more toward democracy, but the longer they have to wait, the more divisions and enmities will develop, and who will be left alive after the next revolution? We can only guess. In the meantime, declaring the entire country our enemy seems just a bit premature.

Yep, the mullahs make for a stern and unforgiving government. It is, however, a government based on law rather than on imperial whim. You don’t have to call it good, but it would be less than honest to call it worse than it was before.

[FinnAgain]

Or how about this 'un?

[

The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is going to get worse'' and warned that the most disturbing’’ revelations haven’t yet been made public.
The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here,'' he said. We’re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we’re talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.’’

](http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Rueful_Rumsfeld_050704.htm)
I will remind you, it is a full investigation into these events, and policies which would prevent them in the future, which Bush has opposed.

Now, anybody with a shred of intellectual honesty would’ve known all this and more before getting into a debate, or at the very least after I provided some of the google search terms. An intellectual whore masturbating all over his keyboard, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t.

[GIGObuster]

Give them enough rope…

Like Bush, the original Magellan thought what he was doing was part of a Crusade:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/magellan.htm

Searching for a way to control the native population after he leaves the island, Magellan persuades one of the local chiefs to convert to Christianity (referred to by Antonio as the “Christian King”). Magellan hopes to make this chieftain supreme over the remaining local tribes and loyal to the King of Spain. To bolster this chief’s local supremacy, Magellan decides that a show of force, particularly the power of his muskets and cannon, against a neighboring tribe will impress the natives into submission.

Magellan orders an attack but miscalculates. He does not take into account that the reefs along the island’s beach will not allow his ships to get into effective range for their cannon. As the battle is joined along the beach, the Spanish fire their muskets ineffectively from too far a distance despite Magellan’s attempt to order his crew to cease-fire. Emboldened, the natives rush into the water flinging spears at the unprotected legs and feet of the Spanish. The crew abandons Magellan in panic and the Captain is soon overwhelmed.

As for condoning torture:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/28/usint10555.htm

This pattern of abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individual soldiers who broke the rules. It resulted from decisions made by senior U.S. officials to bend, ignore or cast rules aside. Yet only the soldiers at the bottom of the chain, such as Pfc. Lynndie R. England and Spc.
Charles A. Graner Jr. who were photographed at Abu Ghraib, are taking the heat while the policy-makers are going free.

Just last week, the Army cleared Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former senior U.S. commander in Iraq, of any wrongdoing. Yet General Sanchez gave the interrogators at Abu Ghraib the authority to use dogs to terrorize detainees, and they did, and we know what happened.

And there is still a lot we do not know. Directives reportedly signed by President Bush authorizing the CIA to establish secret detention facilities and to “render” suspects to countries where torture is used remain classified. Many more photos and videos of detainee abuse remain secret.

Although these policies were adopted in the name of the war on terror, the United States’ widespread mistreatment of Muslim prisoners has certainly been a boon for al-Qaida.

The U.S. actions also pose a direct challenge to human rights enforcement worldwide. Perpetrators of atrocities from Sudan to Zimbabwe have been all to happy to point to the U.S. treatment of prisoners to deflect criticism of their conduct.

Most disturbing, however, may be the idea that the United States has become a nation that finds torture acceptable. And despite all the damage done, Attorney General Gonzales still insisted in January that the CIA was not barred from using cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment when it interrogates non-Americans outside the United States.

If the United States is to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib, it needs to prosecute those at the top who ordered or condoned torture, come clean on what the president has authorized, and repudiate, once and for all, the mistreatment of detainees.

http://cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/5086

This is not the first time that authorities, including our own, have resorted to torture when confronted with unconventional forces–nor will it be the last. The argument is a perennial one: terror can only be countered with terror. Some would even argue that torture is inevitable when the enemy is not easily identifiable and is willing to go to any lengths, including suicide bombings. Others, however, maintain that torture can never be acceptable as it betrays our ideals and undermines our claim to the moral high ground. Furthermore, the practice can be counterproductive. Over the longer term, it brutalizes our soldiers, alienates the civilians we are trying to help, and gives others license to treat Americans in the same way. In the case of Abu Ghraib, those unforgettable photos, deliberately calculated to cause maximum humiliation, are likely to damage the reputation of the United States across the Muslim world for decades to come.

http://www.amperspective.com/

Torture by Proxy

President Bush declared in his State of the Union address, “Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” Considering what’s come to light since then, the most charitable conclusion is that Bush is completely out of the loop.

In recent weeks, past and present administration officials have confirmed that since September 2001 the Central Intelligence Agency has dispatched between 100 and 150 terror suspects to countries where fine points of law and human rights don’t stop beatings, drugging or long isolation.

Before the 9/11 attacks, the CIA occasionally engaged in this indefensible practice, known as “extraordinary rendition.” But afterward, Bush gave the agency wider license to export prisoners in terror-related cases who hadn’t been tried or even charged with any crime. Despite his State of the Union declaration, the president has apparently not revoked that authority.

[XT]

@FinnAgain

I will remind you, it is a full investigation into these events, and policies which would prevent them in the future, which Bush has opposed.

I thought the events WERE being investigated. Maybe I’m wrong here but just because they haven’t released the full photos to the public (I’m not sure I need to see some children being raped in order to get the whole impact…just like I don’t need to see film of some murder caught on film. Its enough for me if the assholes who did the crime pay for their deeds) doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing is being done on the matter. There are a LOT of things that aren’t released to the public but that are still dealt with by the government. After all, obviously the Senate and Congress have seen all the photos, so THEY know whats going on…and they are supposed to be working for us ( :dubious: ).

In addition, bad things happen in war…rape, murder, torture, theft, etc. Afaik what happened at AG were terrible, but they were individuals who mostly carried them out (well, not the torture, I’m sure much of that was sanctioned…but the rape and murders I’m fairly sure were not)…individuals who are, afaik, on trial or already sentenced. So…criminals committed criminal acts and are being (or will be) punished for them. No?

I’m unsure though why pointing to our fuckups (real or imagined) excuses the Iranians in this though, which was sort of the thrust of this OP. Its a completely separate issue. Unless you are willing to forgive the US for our moments of barbarity because there are other barbarous nations out there? The Iranians hung two teen age boys for raping a 13 year old boy. THAT is the issue. Is it ok because its their culture? Is it wrong because the teen agers executed were minors? Is your point that because we live in a glass house we can’t cast stones at the Iranians? If thats the case then I agree the US has nothing to say about this…but then, I could make a case that NO ONE could talk about any other nations behavior, seeing as how just about every nation on earth has shit on their hands at some time or another.

So, assuming that though we live in a glass house we can indeed comment about Iran (and do so without bring in the requisite Bush bash…its just a dream I have that perhaps one day a thread that has little to do with Bush could actually stay on topic and not drag that asshole into it), what are your thoughts on Irans behavior?

-XT