BF2S Forums Why's Everyone more Obsessed with Iran than Pakistan?

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Did you get banned?  I didn't know that.  What did you do?

I have been banned a few times.  I meant my other accounts get perma banned, unlike some people.

Unlike who?  We want names.

no...get back on topic.

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I have been banned a few times.  I meant my other accounts get perma banned, unlike some people.

Unlike who?  We want names.

no...get back on topic.

Ok, Muslims.

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Ok, Muslims.

Well if you step back for a second and think about it, my comment was not that far from the truth.

You mean Iran is capable of using nukes against Israel and Pakistan isn't?

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Well if you step back for a second and think about it, my comment was not that far from the truth.

You mean Iran is capable of using nukes against Israel and Pakistan isn't?

Iran basically threatened to didn't they?  Never heard that from the Paks.

True, but how can they threaten to do that without any nukes?  Pakistan has nukes and if you ask me Musharraf doesn't seem to be in a comfortable position right now.  The country is infested by the Taliban.  What if those fuckers take the control there?

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Well if you step back for a second and think about it, my comment was not that far from the truth.

You mean Iran is capable of using nukes against Israel and Pakistan isn't?

Iran basically threatened to didn't they?  Never heard that from the Paks.

The most that Ahmadinejad has said about Israel is that he believes the state of Israel needs to be removed.  He didn't specifically say that all the Israelis should die or that he wants to nuke them.

Besides, if we're going to jump on his case for making threats against Israel, then hell, we'd have to badger almost every Arab leader for doing the same.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-08-04 17:19:00)

ATG wrote:

Then we nuke them.

Seriously, everybody is concerned about Iran having nuclear power not even nukes, but Pakistan is the biggest threat.  They have nukes and Sunni extremists.  That sounds like a bad combination.

The answer to the OP question is Pakistan "appears" to be making an attempt to cooperate with the world. This is not to say the perception is justified, but rather to explain the logic behind measuring the two hostilities. The Iranian threat is not limited to the US. The EU and UN have taken steps to express their concern as well. In all honesty it would be insane to engage any other nation until we finish securing southern Afghanistan (if at all). Of course the Brits are starting to turn the tide in that region . British Make Initial Gains Against Taliban

Turquoise wrote:

Good to know, but the sooner we leave Iraq, the better.  We're probably going to need our full manpower to focus on Pakistan soon.

Honestly, I'd rather focus our man power towards our borders. Bouncing from nation to nation solving their regional conflicts does little to protect me when we have a porous border at home. We shouldn't be complaining about the neighborhood we live in while refusing to lock our doors.

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You mean Iran is capable of using nukes against Israel and Pakistan isn't?

Iran basically threatened to didn't they?  Never heard that from the Paks.

True, but how can they threaten to do that without any nukes?  Pakistan has nukes and if you ask me Musharraf doesn't seem to be in a comfortable position right now.  The country is infested by the Taliban.  What if those fuckers take the control there?

What if.. What if.. What if...

If we operate on all the "what ifs" we'll be too busy to notice REAL world issues...

"What if bin laden is in Afghan"
"What if Saddam has WMDs"
"What if we arm the Shites in a pre-dom Sunni Area"
What if... what if...

what if we just take CARE of the things that are CERTAIN and LOGICAL..

Once our little puppy Musharraf is overthrown THEN we should worry about the threat Pakistan poses.. Until then they aren't a threat in any way shape or form.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good to know, but the sooner we leave Iraq, the better.  We're probably going to need our full manpower to focus on Pakistan soon.

Honestly, I'd rather focus our man power towards our borders. Bouncing from nation to nation solving their regional conflicts does little to protect me when we have a porous border at home. We shouldn't be complaining about the neighborhood we live in while refusing to lock our doors.

Good point...  but here's a good question...  Have any of the main presidential candidates expressed this sentiment?

Nope, and I think you know how I feel about that. If your pockets are deep enough you can buy out both parties. Discouraging to say the least.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Honestly, I'd rather focus our man power towards our borders. Bouncing from nation to nation solving their regional conflicts does little to protect me when we have a porous border at home. We shouldn't be complaining about the neighborhood we live in while refusing to lock our doors.

Good point...  but here's a good question...  Have any of the main presidential candidates expressed this sentiment?

Nope, and I think you know how I feel about that. If your pockets are deep enough you can buy out both parties. Discouraging to say the least.

Didn't "Republican" candidate Ron Paul address this on the *oh so popular* Colbert Report?

That guy seems to care about nothing.. as a matter of fact he has the most ambigious arguments.. I'd give him my vote if I wasn't scared shitless of a republican from texas in office for another 4 years.. He's too loose. (wow.. and I'm a republican..)

Turquoise wrote:

Madison B. wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Nope, and I think you know how I feel about that. If your pockets are deep enough you can buy out both parties. Discouraging to say the least.

Didn't "Republican" candidate Ron Paul address this on the *oh so popular* Colbert Report?

That guy seems to care about nothing.. as a matter of fact he has the most ambigious arguments.. I'd give him my vote if I wasn't scared shitless of a republican from texas in office for another 4 years.. He's too loose. (wow.. and I'm a republican..)

I'd sooner vote for Ron Paul over any other Republican.  I may disagree with some of his economic policies, but the man's consistent and isn't actually corrupt unlike 99% of politicians.

Yes but the man wants to get rid of EVERYTHING.... Federal Reserve? For crying out loud... I don't think that man took an economics class.. scratch that a HISTORY class.. Maybe he doesn't know why we have the federal reserve..

He's consistant.. yes.. but he's consistant with empty promises.. I love it how some politicians state "I want to do this.. I want to do that.." but they don't throw in the part that they actually NEED congress to agree with them.. And seriously.. if he gets rid of the federal reserve (which won't happen thanks to the fact that everyone wants to protect their $$$ in banks.) and if he gets rid of the Estate Tax & all the other stuff.. where on earth does he think he's going to get paid from?! Sure ain't my pocket since he's gonna "lower taxes".. I'm thinking that Ron Paul has bigger fish in the sea... Like.. "get rid of the estate tax.. and INSTEAD.. we'll make a Property of the Deceased Tax" .. He seems to be saying all this just to get the popular vote... then he can spend the next 3 years doing nothing.. & dude what kind of politician pays to go on The Colbert Report to score some votes?? I really smell something going on.