http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html?s=sp&promo_code=4948-1

“Strike on Iran near”

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw

Godwin’s law is not really about Nazis, as some posters here seem to assume; that just happens to be a particularly common epithet used (or was at one time) in collapsing threads, often regardless of the context. The actual insult could be any slur or imputation that demonizes the target - depending on the forum, the triggers words could be ‘communist’, ‘capitalist’, ‘pedophile’, ‘Suethor’, or anything else meant solely to evoke rage and disgust from the other posters.

The point of the law is that the more protracted and bitter the argument, the more likely it is that someone will resort to name-calling or some other form of ad hominem attack. The corellary is that this usually causes a chain reaction as everyone begins to reply in kind, and any intelligent debate still remaining will get pushed aside by increasingly strident and vicious mudslinging. It may be a symptom of LaynesLaw that this isn’t clearer.

Think of it as the Mutually Assured Destruction principle applied to debate - as long as things remain at least marginally civil, conversation is at least possible, but one low blow will lead to a retaliation and an escalating exchange of insults that once started is nearly impossible to contain and will usually consume the thread and possibly spill in others in the forum as well.

The real lesson to be taken from the law is that it is senseless to continue a stalemated argument between two irreconcilable positions unless you can bring something new to the discussion. When both sides can do nothing but repeat the same positions over and over again, the only solution is to pull away from the fight. -

And you right along with it.

You are just a little more subtle in your hate.

You sure seem to hate Palestinians. Otherwise why do you resort to calling anyone who supports their legitimate aspirations for freedom as “Israel-haters”?

And as for “Liberals obviously hate America.” - only a REAL America-hater like you would say that. I agree with WSC - bullshit! Go peddle some more insurance scams Rossell.

Bullshit, Rossell.

Liberals obviously hate America.

I know you are in favor of ethnic cleansing there. So, just where should they be deported to when you do your clensing?

Reg,
Then why support what we don’t support here?
———————-
Israelis are our allies.

We don’t have to dictate or even like their form of government.

And I thought the answer was obvious.

Lot of people don’t like the way French or German Constitutions and laws are invoked, but they are our allies. We support them in many ways.

Just too much crying about the Israelis, a small dog surrounded by a pack of wolves, imo.

It is the other Arab countries who wish to keep the Palestinian conflict going.
With all the oil wealth of the Moslem countries, they would rather give the Palestinian radicals bombs and guns, and pay for suicide bombers, than build hospitals or create real jobs.

The vast majority of Arab CITIZENS of Israel, would rather live in Israel than in any Arab or Moslem controlled country.

There is a reason for this fact.

Reg.
Why doesn’t Israel adopt the one state solution and allow equal rights for arabs? Even the USA in someplaces allows arabs negros women, even homosexuals the right to vote.
——————

I dunno, probably the same reason Arab states don’t allow equal status for minorities or minority religions. You know, those Arab countries that have Sharia law incorporated into their Constitution.

Ask the Israelis - it’s their country. Why they to choose what they do, they do because the majority passed their laws and constitution to make it say.

Can’t always compare models of what the U.S. is, constitutional-wise with what we expect other countries to be.

It just won’t work and doesn’t.

This is why people are confused about Iraq. There are some very unique laws that are stylized to Iraq that would never work in the U.S.

People trying to compare apples to orange and expecting things to work the way they think they should work the same as the U.S. Constitutional model, need a lesson in World History and government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Well, given the FACT that the US FAVORS an arms race in the Middle East then why should Iran NOT have a deterrent. Iran has been attacked in the recent past by a neighbor. On the other hand, Iran has not launched an attack against a neighbor.

If Iran disarms (which seems to be what you want) then will the US guarantee their security? Will the US pledge to not sponsor an attack again? Will the US pladge itself to not attack Iran again?