And now some goood news. UK says Iran attack possible.

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Any chance of Mr. "I'm Above Average" closing his bold tag (like this)?

Any chance of Mr. Bowfinger pointing out where I've said I'm above average at anything?

Any chance that "most of them are spineless, short sighted, forgetful and stupid" rings a bell? (Or are you agreeing that you're one of the "spineless, short sighted, forgetful and stupid" majority?

A large percentage of Americans don't know or care about anything that isn't happening in their backyard, and they don't consider long term implications of their actions. That's a pretty shortsighted approach if you ask me. This is especially true with the younger generation.

Perhaps, but there is plenty of shortsightedness to go around. As I said before, "spineless, short sighted, and stupid" are also those who, having been duped before by anti-Iraq propaganda, are now lining up again, mouths open, eyes shut, critical thinking disengaged, eagerly guzzling the new loads of anti-Iran Kool-Aid. They are a case study in "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

When it comes to Iran and other nations like North Korea, I believe the threat is genuine. When you look at the facts, you see Iran supporting terror, proclaiming death to Western nations along with Israel, and pursing at the very least the ABILITY to quickly make nuclear weapons, you see a true enemy and I find it hard to just throw all that away as propoganda.

The problem with nations like Iran and other enemies in the ME and elsewhere, is the fact that they seem to be willing to risk everything and don't seem to be worried about dying as long as they take down a infidel with them. Enemies who have nothing to lose/don't care about death are dangerous enemies, especially when it comes to nuclear warfare.

So let me get this straight. You take the Iranians at face value, right? What you see on tv is how you think they are, right? Well, Bush called them a part of the Axis of Evil and promptly invaded one of those members. How should the Iranians react? Should they cower in fear and give Bush everything he wants? Tell me, what should they have done after Bush called them that? (Keep in mind that this was after the Iranians helped us in Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and the Taleban).

The Iranians should give up their nuclear program and take us up on our incentives package. Then I can assure you we will not threaten Iran, nor would we have any reason to.

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Just like Iraq eh? Where you're stuck, because you'd rather "fight the Terrorists there instead of here". Invade Iran and you'll be stuck there, fighting a bunch more "Terrorists"..."there instead of here". It's a self-fulfiling prophecy.

You still havent provided a workable solution.
We already know appeasement doesnt work. Clinton, for all his weaknesses, was a pretty world friendly president. Didnt stop the terrorists from attacking us. The war hasnt ran its course but lets say, for arguments sake, it wont work.

Whats your solution? I hear alot of people bitch about the current course, but its funny because real workable solutions are sure hard to come by from those throwing the biggest fit....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Narmer

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

Damn that would be nice if they agreed to do that. That way we wouldn't have to read anymore of SpecOp 007's nonsensical BS about the subject.

 

[sandorski]

Face it Spec, you're an Imperialist.

The problem with Imperialism is that the Imperialist thinks that because it has the Power to mold the World, that it is a mandate from "God" to do so. Not only a mandate, but a go ahead to use that Power in any way they see fit. The Imperialist is Civilized, everyone else are Barbarians.

Then they go, in the case of the Bush Admin, and make the mistake that not only are they Civilized, but that the Barbarians recognize that "fact". The Civilized will be greeted by the Barbarians the way a child greets Daddy after a long day at work. Imagine the gall of the Barbarians to think that they are equals to the Civilized, to even consider reacting violently to the presence of the Civilized in their Barbarian lands!

The way to avoid being atttacked Here is not to piss them off there.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Narmer

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

Damn that would be nice if they agreed to do that. That way we wouldn't have to read anymore of SpecOp 007's nonsensical BS about the subject.

I agree it would have been nice. Iran could have been a powerful ally had they played bal (read: quit arming Hezbollah)

But none the less, truth is Iran is holding a good deal better hand then we are and their playing it all wrong. World opinion is low, support at home is low. All Iran would have to do is play ball with the UN and we'd be virtually shut out of doing anything to Iran. Especially if they continued to make offers to America (Even if they were hollow).

Bush is too stupid to negoiate with Iran (regardless of the conditions), Iran is too dumb to use their world support to play nice.

Really, in the end no one wins.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Any chance of Mr. "I'm Above Average" closing his bold tag (like this)?

Any chance of Mr. Bowfinger pointing out where I've said I'm above average at anything?

Any chance that "most of them are spineless, short sighted, forgetful and stupid" rings a bell? (Or are you agreeing that you're one of the "spineless, short sighted, forgetful and stupid" majority?

A large percentage of Americans don't know or care about anything that isn't happening in their backyard, and they don't consider long term implications of their actions. That's a pretty shortsighted approach if you ask me. This is especially true with the younger generation.

Perhaps, but there is plenty of shortsightedness to go around. As I said before, "spineless, short sighted, and stupid" are also those who, having been duped before by anti-Iraq propaganda, are now lining up again, mouths open, eyes shut, critical thinking disengaged, eagerly guzzling the new loads of anti-Iran Kool-Aid. They are a case study in "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

When it comes to Iran and other nations like North Korea, I believe the threat is genuine. When you look at the facts, you see Iran supporting terror, proclaiming death to Western nations along with Israel, and pursing at the very least the ABILITY to quickly make nuclear weapons, you see a true enemy and I find it hard to just throw all that away as propoganda.

The problem with nations like Iran and other enemies in the ME and elsewhere, is the fact that they seem to be willing to risk everything and don't seem to be worried about dying as long as they take down a infidel with them. Enemies who have nothing to lose/don't care about death are dangerous enemies, especially when it comes to nuclear warfare.

So let me get this straight. You take the Iranians at face value, right? What you see on tv is how you think they are, right? Well, Bush called them a part of the Axis of Evil and promptly invaded one of those members. How should the Iranians react? Should they cower in fear and give Bush everything he wants? Tell me, what should they have done after Bush called them that? (Keep in mind that this was after the Iranians helped us in Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and the Taleban).

The Iranians should give up their nuclear program and take us up on our incentives package. Then I can assure you we will not threaten Iran, nor would we have any reason to.

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

How exactly are they stronger or mightier? The U.S. could turn Iran from a country into dust whenever it desires to.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Narmer

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

Damn that would be nice if they agreed to do that. That way we wouldn't have to read anymore of SpecOp 007's nonsensical BS about the subject.

I agree it would have been nice. Iran could have been a powerful ally had they played bal (read: quit arming Hezbollah)

But none the less, truth is Iran is holding a good deal better hand then we are and their playing it all wrong. World opinion is low, support at home is low. All Iran would have to do is play ball with the UN and we'd be virtually shut out of doing anything to Iran. Especially if they continued to make offers to America (Even if they were hollow).

Bush is too stupid to negoiate with Iran (regardless of the conditions), Iran is too dumb to use their world support to play nice.

Really, in the end no one wins.

"Falls off chair" Damn something you and I totally agree about!:thumbsup:

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Narmer

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

Damn that would be nice if they agreed to do that. That way we wouldn't have to read anymore of SpecOp 007's nonsensical BS about the subject.

I agree it would have been nice. Iran could have been a powerful ally had they played bal (read: quit arming Hezbollah)

But none the less, truth is Iran is holding a good deal better hand then we are and their playing it all wrong. World opinion is low, support at home is low. All Iran would have to do is play ball with the UN and we'd be virtually shut out of doing anything to Iran. Especially if they continued to make offers to America (Even if they were hollow).

Bush is too stupid to negoiate with Iran (regardless of the conditions), Iran is too dumb to use their world support to play nice.

Really, in the end no one wins.

They're playing their hand wrong? They seem to be getting the better of us and our threats aren't biting.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Any chance of Mr. "I'm Above Average" closing his bold tag (like this)?

Any chance of Mr. Bowfinger pointing out where I've said I'm above average at anything?

Any chance that "most of them are spineless, short sighted, forgetful and stupid" rings a bell? (Or are you agreeing that you're one of the "spineless, short sighted, forgetful and stupid" majority?

A large percentage of Americans don't know or care about anything that isn't happening in their backyard, and they don't consider long term implications of their actions. That's a pretty shortsighted approach if you ask me. This is especially true with the younger generation.

Perhaps, but there is plenty of shortsightedness to go around. As I said before, "spineless, short sighted, and stupid" are also those who, having been duped before by anti-Iraq propaganda, are now lining up again, mouths open, eyes shut, critical thinking disengaged, eagerly guzzling the new loads of anti-Iran Kool-Aid. They are a case study in "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

When it comes to Iran and other nations like North Korea, I believe the threat is genuine. When you look at the facts, you see Iran supporting terror, proclaiming death to Western nations along with Israel, and pursing at the very least the ABILITY to quickly make nuclear weapons, you see a true enemy and I find it hard to just throw all that away as propoganda.

The problem with nations like Iran and other enemies in the ME and elsewhere, is the fact that they seem to be willing to risk everything and don't seem to be worried about dying as long as they take down a infidel with them. Enemies who have nothing to lose/don't care about death are dangerous enemies, especially when it comes to nuclear warfare.

So let me get this straight. You take the Iranians at face value, right? What you see on tv is how you think they are, right? Well, Bush called them a part of the Axis of Evil and promptly invaded one of those members. How should the Iranians react? Should they cower in fear and give Bush everything he wants? Tell me, what should they have done after Bush called them that? (Keep in mind that this was after the Iranians helped us in Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and the Taleban).

The Iranians should give up their nuclear program and take us up on our incentives package. Then I can assure you we will not threaten Iran, nor would we have any reason to.

They offered to do all that and much more in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003. We flatly refused their offer at the time. Then, we were stronger and mightier than thou. Now the roles are reversed. What's your opinion on that? Should they just be our lapdog and do as we say?

How exactly are they stronger or mightier? The U.S. could turn Iran from a country into dust whenever it desires to.

The US could do a lot of things, but it won't because of the consequences. So what you just said isn't even the starting point for a logical debate, unless you want to debate fantasy. The Iranians are far stronger on the ground in Iraq than we are and we are starting to realize that.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem with nations like Iran and other enemies in the ME and elsewhere, is the fact that they seem to be willing to risk everything and don't seem to be worried about dying as long as they take down a infidel with them. Enemies who have nothing to lose/don't care about death are dangerous enemies, especially when it comes to nuclear warfare.

Project much? Obviously. Perhaps one of the most unfortunate after effects of 9/11 has been the ability of the Rightwing to project the qualities of the 9/11 attackers onto an entire region... which is pure demagoguery and fearmongering.

I'd also remind the readers that there's a big difference between sacrificing one's self and sacrificing all that one holds dear- their entire family and nation, which is what nuclear war entails. There is no armageddon, no rapture in Islam, which can't be said for the most radical christian elements.

And, of course, the Tories won't rule out an attack on Iran- they're the British equivalent of Repubs, after all. Their chances of gaining control of the British govt any time RSN are nil, anyway, given that Blair's problems stem from out-torying the tories when he joined Bush's most excellent Iraqi adventure... Brits aren't about to leap out of the fryingpan into the fire...

And appeasement? heh. there's only one 800 lb. gorilla rattling the world's cage, and that's the US under the Bush Admin. The Europeans, Russians, Chinese and damned near everybody else has been working very hard to appease that monster, with few exceptions... and little success, either.

The Bushistas thought they had it all figured out when they invaded Iraq... Given how that's working out, only a fool would trust their judgement wrt Iran, which is a much stronger opponent, and whose govt actually has the support of the people, particularly if they're attacked. The results of such folly are completely incalculable, except that it would likely involve a very great deal of blood, much of it American.

 

[Jeff7]

Colbert should be thrilled. We're back on the road to World War III. Phew.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Colbert should be thrilled. We're back on the road to World War III. Phew.

Population control

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Colbert should be thrilled. We're back on the road to World War III. Phew.

hehe