I realise that.God Save the Queen wrote:
Iran does not have the best intentions for any arab when they deal with israel.CameronPoe wrote:
I think it's a great idea for them to move their assets - a no-brainer. I think you misread what I meant. As for the Israel reference: it's to highlight the ever-present hypocrisy in western dealings with the rest of the world.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Bother what? Moving their assets so they can use them? I think it's a pretty good move for the country of Iran to move around nearly 100 Billion. I actually argee that is a good move. Would really suck to go and purchase something, only to find your accounts frozen by the world banking system...
And For Fucks Sake! Why, I will never know, do you always have to put Isreal is the bad guy in every thread? UN resolution 242 has nothing to fucking do with this topic... GTFO or stay on topic, geez man!
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Humm, Iran still on the run... not going to stop, yet.
hypocracy could only exist if you think there is such a thing as right or wrongTurquoise wrote:
He's pointing out that our relations with the Middle East are hypocritical... but Israel is hypocritical as well.
Well, if there's no right or wrong... anything goes. That means we don't have an argument for getting rid of Iran's nuke program and they don't have an argument for having them...God Save the Queen wrote:
hypocracy could only exist if you think there is such a thing as right or wrongTurquoise wrote:
He's pointing out that our relations with the Middle East are hypocritical... but Israel is hypocritical as well.
but we do have cassus belli, given the support they send to the shiite insurgency, or kidnapping civilians and capturing sovereign US territory.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-06-16 16:14:39)
True... but what does that have to do with their nukes?God Save the Queen wrote:
but we do have cassus belli, given the support they send to the shiite insurgency, or kidnapping civilians and capturing sovereign US territory.
if they are willing to attack american interests unconventionally without a nuke, what makes you think they wont with one?
Because while the leadership in Iran may be slightly..unhinged, they're not suicidal.God Save the Queen wrote:
if they are willing to attack american interests unconventionally without a nuke, what makes you think they wont with one?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Because they'll get nuked back 100-fold, no ifs, no buts, no questions asked?God Save the Queen wrote:
if they are willing to attack american interests unconventionally without a nuke, what makes you think they wont with one?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-16 16:18:58)
A lack of desire for suicide
So after he was invaded the first time he felt no threat?CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah Saddam had loads of nukes didn't he. And everybody warned him about invading Kuwait too. They phoned him beforehand...Lotta_Drool wrote:
MAD works well in the Middle East. Sadam was so full of fear he Invaded Kuwait after being warned and then shot Missles at Israel. Yep, after the first war he new his country didn't stand a chance and he straightened up and listened to the world, didn't shoot at US jet, plot assinanations, build missiles that could reach Israel, or kick weapon inspectors out of his country.
Oh wait, I guess that was just AD. I am sure MAD would be much better though. Especially when the leader of Iran wants to be the one to get the glory for destroying Israel.
As too the how could they boss Europe around when it would just level the playing field, please to be so fucking stupid.
Let's not forget what US ambassador to Iraq said prior to the invasion of Kuwait:
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not in the spirit of confrontation — regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one."
What a threat. 'No opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts'. Typical horseshit.
And you are smart enough to know that Sadam knew the world wouldn't let him have Kuwait or the Gulf shipping lanes. Of course he knew there would be a war, with Saudi and Iran in the very least.
Im talking about something that could easily be blamed on independently operated terror cells. Or, sharing that technology and resource with enemies of the United States that have less to lose the current iranian regime. I dont think theyll ever physically launch missiles at israel. the region is too compact for that to be effective without hurting your own interests. Im being pragmatic.CameronPoe wrote:
Because they'll get nuked back 100-fold, no ifs, no buts, no questions asked?God Save the Queen wrote:
if they are willing to attack american interests unconventionally without a nuke, what makes you think they wont with one?
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-06-16 16:25:32)
I actually think Saddam thought that. UIp until the persian gulf war, we were friendly with Iraqi baathists. We had good reason to support hussein, especially since 1979 with the islamic revolution. Saddam ruled with an iron fist and he was secular. Kept the soviets out of the region, kept the fundamentalists out as well. Our support for iraq was marginal overall, but it was vital at times. We gave the iraqis a lot of intel that played heavily on their decision making strategies for war against iran.Lotta_Drool wrote:
So after he was invaded the first time he felt no threat?CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah Saddam had loads of nukes didn't he. And everybody warned him about invading Kuwait too. They phoned him beforehand...Lotta_Drool wrote:
MAD works well in the Middle East. Sadam was so full of fear he Invaded Kuwait after being warned and then shot Missles at Israel. Yep, after the first war he new his country didn't stand a chance and he straightened up and listened to the world, didn't shoot at US jet, plot assinanations, build missiles that could reach Israel, or kick weapon inspectors out of his country.
Oh wait, I guess that was just AD. I am sure MAD would be much better though. Especially when the leader of Iran wants to be the one to get the glory for destroying Israel.
As too the how could they boss Europe around when it would just level the playing field, please to be so fucking stupid.
Let's not forget what US ambassador to Iraq said prior to the invasion of Kuwait:
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not in the spirit of confrontation — regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one."
What a threat. 'No opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts'. Typical horseshit.
And you are smart enough to know that Sadam knew the world wouldn't let him have Kuwait or the Gulf shipping lanes. Of course he knew there would be a war, with Saudi and Iran in the very least.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-06-16 16:25:00)
Until the very moment he invaded he was an ally of the US. He just exercised poor judgement and fucked himself in the ass. He was a megalomaniac after all.Lotta_Drool wrote:
So after he was invaded the first time he felt no threat?
And you are smart enough to know that Sadam knew the world wouldn't let him have Kuwait or the Gulf shipping lanes. Of course he knew there would be a war, with Saudi and Iran in the very least.
I am sure his judgement would have been better if he had nukes.CameronPoe wrote:
Until the very moment he invaded he was an ally of the US. He just exercised poor judgement and fucked himself in the ass. He was a megalomaniac after all.Lotta_Drool wrote:
So after he was invaded the first time he felt no threat?
And you are smart enough to know that Sadam knew the world wouldn't let him have Kuwait or the Gulf shipping lanes. Of course he knew there would be a war, with Saudi and Iran in the very least.
Because it makes sense to detonate a highly health-endangering nuclear advice just across your southern border....?Lotta_Drool wrote:
I am sure his judgement would have been better if he had nukes.
No, because of MAD. People don't do crazy shit if they got nukes. that is what I learned in this thread from liberals.CameronPoe wrote:
Because it makes sense to detonate a highly health-endangering nuclear advice just across your southern border....?Lotta_Drool wrote:
I am sure his judgement would have been better if he had nukes.
Like confirmed nuclear weapon wielding megalomaniac Kim Jung-Il? Who traded his nukes for some shipments of oil? lolLotta_Drool wrote:
No, because of MAD. People don't do crazy shit if they got nukes. that is what I learned in this thread from liberals.CameronPoe wrote:
Because it makes sense to detonate a highly health-endangering nuclear advice just across your southern border....?Lotta_Drool wrote:
I am sure his judgement would have been better if he had nukes.
The thing about megalomaniacs is that they're too self-interested to risk their lives. Mao and Stalin did everything in their power to die on their own terms. As soon as the A-bomb hit Japan Hirohito buckled instantly. Nukes have a certain 'je ne sais quoi' when it comes to infuencing peoples attitudes.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-16 16:48:54)
Yes, and everyone who is crazy is the same and they react the same. I am sure Iran would never threaten countries after it has nukes or use them to pressure the world with its agenda. No countries with nukes ever do this stuff, especially if the country's leader is openly hostile to the Jewish state in the M.E.CameronPoe wrote:
Like confirmed nuclear weapon wielding megalomaniac Kim Jung-Il? Who traded his nukes for some shipments of oil? lolLotta_Drool wrote:
No, because of MAD. People don't do crazy shit if they got nukes. that is what I learned in this thread from liberals.CameronPoe wrote:
Because it makes sense to detonate a highly health-endangering nuclear advice just across your southern border....?
The thing about megalomaniacs is that they're too self-interested to risk their lives. Mao and Stalin did everything in their power to die on their own terms. As soon as the A-bomb hit Japan Hirohito buckled instantly.
Spit, that fails because Sadam didn't put WMD payloads on those warheads. Not too much of a stretch to assume it was because he knew the rules to an extent? MAD.Lotta_Drool wrote:
MAD works well in the Middle East. Sadam was so full of fear he Invaded Kuwait after being warned and then shot Missles at Israel. Yep, after the first war he new his country didn't stand a chance and he straightened up and listened to the world, didn't shoot at US jet, plot assinanations, build missiles that could reach Israel, or kick weapon inspectors out of his country.
Oh wait, I guess that was just AD. I am sure MAD would be much better though. Especially when the leader of Iran wants to be the one to get the glory for destroying Israel.
As too the how could they boss Europe around when it would just level the playing field, please to be so fucking stupid.
Also, a war that has succeeded brilliantly on the battlefield has been also lost to the press and greed by government contractors. And ineptness in the government that has failed to prioritize in the M.E. Where's Bin Laden?
What we have is a war without end, at least for a hundred years according to McCain, and it seems like the only people making out on this are the guys that make guns, planes and bombs and oil companies. Haliburton, bah, it's against the fucking law to use mercenaries so our guys call them private contractors.
Enough.
Where Cam fails is to never offer what appears to be a workable solution to the Jewish problem.
His rhetoric is the type of rhetoric that leads to...well...what Cam? A neo Bergen Belsen?
Meanwhile, whether or not we are technically in a recession I can tell you our econmies fucked right now. I am upside down 100k on my house suddenly. No equity. No way to cash in on these low rates now available as we teeter. I make my payments, but sometimes I wonder why when I can buy a bigger house that sits vacant and foreclosed down the street in my wifes name. A fair sized part of formerly disposable income I had access to just a few months ago now goes in my tank. Talk about trickle down theory. People aren't spending money.
Resource scares are mentioned in regards to gas prices, but nearly everytime oil goes up it is linked to unstability or rumors of war in the Middle East.
Enough.
It is time for a finale solution.
One that doesn't involve mass graves or continous occupation. Seems to me a great many problems would be solved if all our war energies were put into things that built wealth, not destroyed it.
Last edited by ATG (2008-06-16 16:58:45)
You seem to be suggesting that Iran is crazy. Iran actually just wants a deterrent to prevent the ever encroaching west from fucking with them. Why should Iran not be allowed to push its own agenda? Is it not a sovereign nation? The US has troops on either side of it - you can push your agenda but they can't push theirs. I see how this works... If I was an Iranian and I saw that the US, a country with a history of interfering in my political affairs (CIA coup of Mossadeq for instance), was setting up shop for '100 years' to my west and manning bases out to my east alarm bells would be ringing. The only thing that could prevent the US from taking action against me would be to procure the deterrent to beat all deterrents - a nuke. That why Israel developed them: to prevent the Arabs from destroying them. You understand?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Yes, and everyone who is crazy is the same and they react the same. I am sure Iran would never threaten countries after it has nukes or use them to pressure the world with its agenda. No countries with nukes ever do this stuff, especially if the country's leader is openly hostile to the Jewish state in the M.E.
So, In accoridng to your 'je ne sais quoi' logic the USesses only option is to nuke Iran.CameronPoe wrote:
Like confirmed nuclear weapon wielding megalomaniac Kim Jung-Il? Who traded his nukes for some shipments of oil? lolLotta_Drool wrote:
No, because of MAD. People don't do crazy shit if they got nukes. that is what I learned in this thread from liberals.CameronPoe wrote:
Because it makes sense to detonate a highly health-endangering nuclear advice just across your southern border....?
The thing about megalomaniacs is that they're too self-interested to risk their lives. Mao and Stalin did everything in their power to die on their own terms. As soon as the A-bomb hit Japan Hirohito buckled instantly. Nukes have a certain 'je ne sais quoi' when it comes to infuencing peoples attitudes.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
war brings wealth
Why, is Iran threatening to destroy the US? Are the Iranian landing crafts beaching along the coast of Delaware or something??DBBrinson1 wrote:
So, In accoridng to your 'je ne sais quoi' logic the USesses only option is to nuke Iran.
Hey I was merely pointing out that you insinuated that [the threat of or] nuking a megalomaniac is the only way to bend/break them. And actually Iran is all ready in a proxy war with the US.CameronPoe wrote:
Why, is Iran threatening to destroy the US? Are the Iranian landing crafts beaching along the coast of Delaware or something??DBBrinson1 wrote:
So, In accoridng to your 'je ne sais quoi' logic the USesses only option is to nuke Iran.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
i want in.God Save the Queen wrote:
war brings wealth
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Humm, Iran still on the run... not going to stop, yet.