U.S. weakness emboldens Iran: 'We've got the power...enemies Mosquito'

2009-11-02 03:47:06

#26

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6776|MN

Varegg wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
Varegg wrote:
I find it strange that so many think Iran will use WMD without thinking twice about being annihilated themselves ...
I find it strange you would say that without learning a little more about the religion their leader follows. Dude is bonkers.
You said it ... dude is bonkers and that has very little to do woth their religion tbh ... I know that religion very well btw ...

So, if the leader of a country follows that religion very, well, religously, you don't have a problem with him having some control over nuclear weapons?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-11-02 03:52:53

#27

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7152|Scotland

LividBovine wrote:
Varegg wrote:
LividBovine wrote:

I find it strange you would say that without learning a little more about the religion their leader follows. Dude is bonkers.
You said it ... dude is bonkers and that has very little to do woth their religion tbh ... I know that religion very well btw ...
So, if the leader of a country follows that religion very, well, religously, you don't have a problem with him having some control over nuclear weapons?

Ugh. People like you are what cause the problems between religions in the first place.

So what if he follows the religion... religiously... I'm pretty sure if the country thought he was about to send a nuke somewhere, then they would certainly have something to say. Not every religous person of that said religion wants to die, you know. Iran knows that sending a nuke would be a huge mistake, as they would wipe themselves off the map, they just like to have the world in a bit of a knot right now and make diplomats and the sort suffer by not "completely abiding" by the regulations put in place. It's all a game to them, but when it gets serious, I'm quite certain they wont want their country destroyed in a few seconds.

2009-11-02 03:57:30

#28

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6776|MN

Zimmer wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
Varegg wrote:

You said it ... dude is bonkers and that has very little to do woth their religion tbh ... I know that religion very well btw ...
So, if the leader of a country follows that religion very, well, religously, you don't have a problem with him having some control over nuclear weapons?
Ugh. People like you are what cause the problems between religions in the first place.

So what if he follows the religion... religiously... I'm pretty sure if the country thought he was about to send a nuke somewhere, then they would certainly have something to say. Not every religous person of that said religion wants to die, you know. Iran knows that sending a nuke would be a huge mistake, as they would wipe themselves off the map, they just like to have the world in a bit of a knot right now and make diplomats and the sort suffer by not "completely abiding" by the regulations put in place. It's all a game to them, but when it gets serious, I'm quite certain they wont want their country destroyed in a few seconds.

I do believe that this particular man, believing what he does, is more likely to use a nuclear weapon on the US and/or Israel than any other leader of a country. That PC enough for you? Keep defending the man by making it seem like I am bashing Islam. I do not like Islam, but I have not attacked it here at all. I am attacking the man.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-11-02 03:57:48

#29

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7071|Canberra, AUS

as i said: not stupid.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-11-02 03:59:15

#30

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6776|MN

As I said, Bonkers, and willing to die to bring the 12th Imam back sooner.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-11-02 04:00:30

#31

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7071|Canberra, AUS

but not willing to see their country turned into a poisoned wasteland.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-11-02 04:01:22

#32

Zimmer: Un Moderador; +1,688|7152|Scotland

LividBovine wrote:
I do believe that this particular man, believing what he does, is more likely to use a nuclear weapon on the US and/or Israel than any other leader of a country. That PC enough for you? Keep defending the man by making it seem like I am bashing Islam. I do not like Islam, but I have not attacked it here at all. I am attacking the man.

Haha.

Sure, he's more likely to, but is he actually going to? Right now, there are quite a few leaders who would relish launching a nuke at the US, but know it would be utterly pointless and stupid to do so. He isn't stupid, he's playing games with the US and making them feel uneasy, and it's working like a charm.

2009-11-02 04:01:27

#33

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6776|MN

THEY are not in control, he is, and that other guy.

Good night.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-11-02 04:15:33

#34

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,821|6502|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
So Iraq didn't have WMD, and didn't cooperate with the international community and inspectors, so that wasn't justified.

But Iran does, with an active nuke program, makes threats, and doesn't really cooperate with the international community and inspectors...but taking action there wouldn't be justified, either.

Except Iran was cooperating, until the US told them they couldn't have the civil nuclear program to which they are entitled.

PS I haven't heard Iran make a threat yet, unless threatening to defend yourself is a threat.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-02 05:24:17

#35

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7206|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So Iraq didn't have WMD, and didn't cooperate with the international community and inspectors, so that wasn't justified.

But Iran does, with an active nuke program, makes threats, and doesn't really cooperate with the international community and inspectors...but taking action there wouldn't be justified, either.

I guess the only action that is justified in Dilbert's world is sitting on your hands until all you can do is wring them in anguish and blame the US for not doing anything.
Maybe your own country would be a better place if you guys didn't feel compelled to police the entire globe on your own ... the British empire crumbled after making the same mistakes the US have and are doing right now ... the US is now in a position were it's previous interventions comes back at ya with interests ... your global quest for democracy has failed utterly ...
Who says we're the ones who feel compelled to do it?

Seems that everyone wants us to keep to ourselves, but every time someone needs help, they turn to Uncle Sam with puppy dog eyes. Can't have it both ways.

History says it tbh ...

Uncle Sam pr date is the bully in the school-yard FEOS, you rather not play with him but he's good to have as a friend when things go sour ... the anology however could have been different if Uncle Sam wasn't such a bully

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-11-02 05:25:52

#36

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7206|Nårvei

LividBovine wrote:
THEY are not in control, he is, and that other guy.

Good night.

Mr. Dinnerjacket is not so much in control as you like to think he is, Iran is a teocracy not a democracy with an elected all powerful president ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-11-02 14:10:59

#37

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6807|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So Iraq didn't have WMD, and didn't cooperate with the international community and inspectors, so that wasn't justified.

But Iran does, with an active nuke program, makes threats, and doesn't really cooperate with the international community and inspectors...but taking action there wouldn't be justified, either.
Except Iran was cooperating, until the US told them they couldn't have the civil nuclear program to which they are entitled.

PS I haven't heard Iran make a threat yet, unless threatening to defend yourself is a threat.

Except Iran wasn't cooperating. Except it wasn't the US alone that told them anything. Everyone involved has said--from the beginning--that Iran is completely entitled to a civil nuclear program. They just aren't building one.

Threatening to "defend yourself" against inspection programs mandated by the UN certainly sounds threatening to the international community.

And the next time you type US, go ahead an copy and paste the following:

France, UK, Russia, China, and Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

That might pound it into your skull that it's not just the US and it's not just the West. In fact, the ones who are most concerned about Iran's nuclear program are the last group listed...Iran's neighbors.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-11-02 14:14:59

#38

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6807|'Murka

Varegg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:

Maybe your own country would be a better place if you guys didn't feel compelled to police the entire globe on your own ... the British empire crumbled after making the same mistakes the US have and are doing right now ... the US is now in a position were it's previous interventions comes back at ya with interests ... your global quest for democracy has failed utterly ...
Who says we're the ones who feel compelled to do it?

Seems that everyone wants us to keep to ourselves, but every time someone needs help, they turn to Uncle Sam with puppy dog eyes. Can't have it both ways.
History says it tbh ...

Uncle Sam pr date is the bully in the school-yard FEOS, you rather not play with him but he's good to have as a friend when things go sour ... the anology however could have been different if Uncle Sam wasn't such a bully

Bullshit. One fuckup in Iraq and suddenly the US is the bully that nobody can trust? I don't believe that for an instant. I'm sick and fucking tired of Europe, living in its glass house, chucking rocks at the US.

Take your bully nonsense and put that one page into the history book full of the same shit Europe's been doing for centuries.

And make sure you tell your government and every other government in the UN not to ask for or expect help from the US next time it's needed. Let's see how that works out for the rest of you.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-11-02 15:01:06

#39

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,821|6502|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. One fuckup in Iraq and suddenly the US is the bully that nobody can trust?

Two fuckups in Iraq, there was Gulf War I, thanks to US ineptitude.
Actually three, 10 years of sanctions on Iraq which just caused suffering to the people.

Then of course theres Israel and the bullly boy tactics the US uses to bring Jebus back.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-02 15:12:15

#40

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6807|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. One fuckup in Iraq and suddenly the US is the bully that nobody can trust?
Two fuckups in Iraq, there was Gulf War I, thanks to US ineptitude.
Actually three, 10 years of sanctions on Iraq which just caused suffering to the people.

Then of course theres Israel and the bullly boy tactics the US uses to bring Jebus back.

So you're blaming the US for the UN now? That's fucking brilliant.

Had we "finished the job" in Gulf War I, the international community would've screamed bloody murder. Blame the UN.

Sanctions were UN. Suffering of the Iraqi people were due to UN corruption and collusion with Iraqi government, not the US.

And your Israel comment is utter fucking nonsense.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-11-02 15:22:50

#41

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7017|London, England

You know I wouldn't be surprised if some of those guys want a war with the US. Think about it, all the shit going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, and then Iran, all this recession stuff, ideally, the last thing US and certain other countries would need or want is an Iranian conflict. As much as you have people here wishing for an Iranian invasion, it would actually go down quite bad when you just think about what it would all actually mean.

Unless in the most extreme circumstances, I can't see there being any war. No matter how many people wish for it to happen, both on the American and Iranian side.

2009-11-02 15:32:55

#42

Red Forman: Banned; +402|5797

innit Mekintosh

2009-11-02 15:37:37

#43

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,821|6502|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Had we "finished the job" in Gulf War I, the international community would've screamed bloody murder. Blame the UN.

'The job' was the US fuckup in the first place. Without US stupidity Kuwait would not have been invaded in the first place.

Sanctions were UN.

Except they were driven and imposed by the US

Suffering of the Iraqi people were due to UN corruption and collusion with Iraqi government, not the US.

How so? Corruption had nothing to do with the suffering.

And your Israel comment is utter fucking nonsense.

Mindless chistrian doctrine led support for a genocidal theocratic regime like Israel has caused immense suffering in the ME.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-02 16:34:48

#44

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6896|so randum

That's not much to do with you emboldening him, it has more to do with him being a total fruit.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-11-02 16:38:50

#45

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6807|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Had we "finished the job" in Gulf War I, the international community would've screamed bloody murder. Blame the UN.
'The job' was the US fuckup in the first place. Without US stupidity Kuwait would not have been invaded in the first place.

Bullshit. Typical Dilbert "blame the US" kneejerk mentality.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Sanctions were UN.
Except they were driven and imposed by the US

Bullshit. Look at the signatories and backers of the sanctions.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Suffering of the Iraqi people were due to UN corruption and collusion with Iraqi government, not the US.
How so? Corruption had nothing to do with the suffering.

Bullshit. Corruption had EVERYTHING to do with the suffering, as it diverted the funds intended for food and medicine to Saddam's golden fucking toilets...all under the watchful eye of the UN.

Dilbert_X wrote:
And your Israel comment is utter fucking nonsense.
Mindless chistrian doctrine led support for a genocidal theocratic regime like Israel has caused immense suffering in the ME.

Bullshit. It has nothing to do with Christian doctrine and everything to do with Europe's collective guilt for collective repression of a race for centuries, culminating in the horror of the Holocaust.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-11-02 17:07:34

#46

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,821|6502|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. Typical Dilbert "blame the US" kneejerk mentality.

Incorrect, the US encouraged Kuwait to bust their OPEC quotas, then gave Iraq the green light to attack.

It has nothing to do with Christian doctrine and everything to do with Europe's collective guilt for collective repression of a race for centuries

As pointed out before, the US didn't give a shit about the jews either, turning them around and sending them back to concentration camps.
Europe did not set up Israel and hasn't backed them blindly since.
'European collective guilt' doesn't exist AFAIK.
Christian nutballs trying to bring about the second coming and US Presidents invoking god and crusades do.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-02 18:29:40

#47

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6807|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bullshit. Typical Dilbert "blame the US" kneejerk mentality.
Incorrect, the US encouraged Kuwait to bust their OPEC quotas, then gave Iraq the green light to attack.

Bullshit.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with OPEC quotas. Our ambassador's comments to Saddam were anything but a "green light to attack". That's along the lines of "Loose Change" logic, Dilbert.

Dilbert_X wrote:
It has nothing to do with Christian doctrine and everything to do with Europe's collective guilt for collective repression of a race for centuries
As pointed out before, the US didn't give a shit about the jews either, turning them around and sending them back to concentration camps.
Europe did not set up Israel and hasn't backed them blindly since.

Who provided Israel with their initial arsenal and nukes? Wasn't the US.

Dilbert_X wrote:
'European collective guilt' doesn't exist AFAIK.
Christian nutballs trying to bring about the second coming and US Presidents invoking god and crusades do.

If the latter exists, the former exists. Can't have your logic cake and eat it too.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-11-03 16:31:57

#48

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7111|US

Dilbert,

Never heard of the Balfour Declaration, eh?

I'd like to see your sources for the US "green light" to invade Kuwait. Considering what we did immediately after that...

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-11-03 16:32:27)

2009-11-03 16:58:00

#49

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,821|6502|eXtreme to the maX

There are various versions, I guess the one Saddam went with was:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

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

FEOS wrote:
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with OPEC quotas.

It did, the oil price was too low for Iraq to make enough money.

Fuck Israel

2009-11-03 18:23:08

#50

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6807|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
There are various versions, I guess the one Saddam went with was:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
FEOS wrote:
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with OPEC quotas.
It did, the oil price was too low for Iraq to make enough money.

The first bit is hardly a "green light" for an invasion, ffs. You--and everyone else who used that, including Saddam (interesting that you and Saddam think alike)--are stretching, to put it mildly, to make that connection.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was about Iraq's agenda. Not about OPEC quotas. Not about so-called "green lights". Typical blame-placing.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums U.S. weakness emboldens Iran: 'We've got the power...enemies Mosquito'

Varegg wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Varegg wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer