it's this type of shit that'll have McCain elected.
I'll be happy to. war with Iran will not happen. it will also not happen if McCain is president. a naval blockade is not war. neither is trash talking.
I don't think that these concerns are totally off-the-mark ... I'd be a bit baffled as to why Russia would align itself with Iran, given the latter's Islamic bent. Russia has its own issues with Islamic extremists, and to me, a large secular power aligning itself with a major source of aid to Chechen rebels makes little to no sense to me, unless Russia really is stuck in a prehistoric Cold War mentality, like I suspect they might be. That, or its about oil. What does Russia have to gain by aligning itself against the Western world? Wouldn't there be more payoffs if it did the opposite? I don't know. You post does get a person thinking, though.
Yes. I agree it would make strange bedfellows indeed.
Heres the new rub i just got.
I've been seriously out of the loop for over a week. No cable. no internet. No Alex Jones. No Newspapers. Nothing. Busy moving.
Just talked with a friend who has been keeping up with the guests AJ has on regarding foreign policy and with websites, and he says the way he hears it Georgia (or rather US interests vis a vis Georgia) were unquestionably the aggressor.
Now i haven't yet had time to validate this,
but if that is true, it changes the game around significantly.
What i mean is,
that would dictate that the entire situation is a United States (or globalist) fabrication. That one interest was behind the Russian aggression and the continued aggravation of a middle easter aggression via pressures on Iran.
If that is the case,
then it would mean this is all part of some strange plan to force a war, or a cold war state, or some sort of paranoid media sensation that molds the peoples will for a political purpose.
The possibilities are endless down that road,
and they are all scary.
blech.
this sucks.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yea yea ok. according to you and alex jones we are officially at war. call me when we have troops on the ground.
lol
yeah, I'm sure you'll step up once we finally have "troops on the ground." but by then, it'll be "too late" to go "against" the U.S. and we'll have to continue giving money to the defense fund...
yeah, I'm sure you'll step up once we finally have "troops on the ground." but by then, it'll be "too late" to go "against" the U.S. and we'll have to continue giving money to the defense fund...
after having been gone a week, and returning,
i think i've been broken.
the unchecked aggression will not stand.
i'll just throw my punches, take my lumps and move on.
its not even worth it.
:(
Driftin', dude, chill ... Your presence here is appreciated. Probably more than mine, actually. Lately, I so much as fart and someone accuses me of a personal attack.
Driftin', dude, chill ... Your presence here is appreciated. Probably more than mine, actually. Lately, I so much as fart and someone accuses me of a personal attack.
I second reborncareerist's sentiments here. Your presence is appreciated.
Hold on a sec...something smells...REBOOOORN!!! Stop with the personal attacks already. Man, I gotta get some fresh air.
sorry if you felt "attacked" by my response to what war actually is.
i didn't feel attacked.
i thought it was an idiotic statement.
its like saying spitting in a guys face isn't starting a fight, because the other guy threw the first punch.
A blockade is an ACT OF WAR.
What part of that don't you understand.
The ONLY thing that prevents it from actually BEING "war" is the RESPONSE or lack there of from the party that the AGRESSION was put upon.
Have fun with your semantic games,
and your insults.
how long of a ban does one get for posting a non-work friendly pop-up attached of a dick?
a. its not a dick. its meat. food.
who knows, i thought you could be hungry.
b. how long? fuck it depends dude. we are highly subjective over here. how high\tired\sleepy\grumpy is the moderator, how much does he or she like you. how many times have you been an ass. what color is your favorite. WHO KNOWS.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i didn't feel attacked.
i thought it was an idiotic statement.
its like saying spitting in a guys face isn't starting a fight, because the other guy threw the first punch.
A blockade is an ACT OF WAR.
What part of that don't you understand.
The ONLY thing that prevents it from actually BEING "war" is the RESPONSE or lack there of from the party that the AGRESSION was put upon.
Have fun with your semantic games,
and your insults.
blah blah blah. spitting in someones face does nothing more then hurt an ego. hit him in the head with a baseball bat. well thats different.
a. its not a dick. its meat. food.
who knows, i thought you could be hungry.
b. how long? fuck it depends dude. we are highly subjective over here. how high\tired\sleepy\grumpy is the moderator, how much does he or she like you. how many times have you been an ass. what color is your favorite. WHO KNOWS.
well enjoy your time off. honestly, it looks like you need it.
Sorry. I love curry, what can I say. Good with the bad and all that.
If you've ever heard the song "The Chastising of Renegade" by Primus I had that voice he uses when saying "Renegaaaade, come here boy" in my head when I was calling you out. Just thought I'd state that to help set the mood for ya.
blah blah blah. spitting in someones face does nothing more then hurt an ego. hit him in the head with a baseball bat. well thats different.
yea, see WAR has clearly defined rules.
A naval blockade is an ACT OF WAR.
You can't fucking weasel your sly ass out of that.
Perhaps a better analogy would be slapping someone in the face with a glove and saying "i challenege you to a duel" and then trying to file a complaint with the authorities that you were shot.
You engaged in a activitiy with CLEARLY DEFINED RULES.
Which were followed.
Therefore it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that if a war comes from this ACT OF WAR, that THE UNITED STATES STARTED THE WAR,
since they would be the party RESPONSIBLE for the ACT OF WAR.
I don't think you will find too many even of the self professed law scholars on this board disagree with this sentiment.
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yea, see WAR has clearly defined rules.
A naval blockade is an ACT OF WAR.
You can't fucking weasel your sly ass out of that.
Perhaps a better analogy would be slapping someone in the face with a glove and saying "i challenege you to a duel" and then trying to file a complaint with the authorities that you were shot.
You engaged in a activitiy with CLEARLY DEFINED RULES.
Which were followed.
Therefore it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that if a war comes from this ACT OF WAR, that THE UNITED STATES STARTED THE WAR,
since they would be the party RESPONSIBLE for the ACT OF WAR.
I don't think you will find too many even of the self professed law scholars on this board disagree with this sentiment.
:cool:
To help add something more than my other random thoughts to the actual discussion at hand, I have this to say. Laying a seige on another foreign entity is an act of war. A seige is usually done to prevent resources from coming into the country/castle/whatever the fuck you are beseiging, so it is further weakened. A naval blockade is similar to this so I'd have to agree with Drifting.
To help add something more than my other random thoughts to the actual discussion at hand, I have this to say. Laying a seige on another foreign entity is an act of war. A seige is usually done to prevent resources from coming into the country/castle/whatever the fuck you are beseiging, so it is further weakened. A naval blockade is similar to this so I'd have to agree with Drifting.
What about UN sanctions? Are those an act of war as well?
Same logic ... Sanctions are intended to prevent resources from coming into a country. Did the UN declare war on Iraq with its sanctions after the 91 war, then? Did it declare war on South Africa with its sanctions during apartheid?
It seems that Bush and Co will get there hands on Iran after all. They know that they don't have the public support for another war so why not create a situation to antagonize Iran into making the first move.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
its not some shades of grey bullshit.
Its genuine matter of fact law.
Naval Blockade = ACT OF WAR.
Stop playing goddamn semantics, folks.
Well, do you guys want to have a fucking discussion or no? I am not into e-cock-stroking, sorry. Blowing off my point as semantics is an odd tactic, since you're whole argument that a blockade is war is based on ... Semantics!
I will take you one more level though, its not that we are going to set the blockade just that we practiced with the french and british navies on how to do it and then sent those ships along to the persian gulf. So now the Iranians are aware of what our plan probably is, and hopefully having the ships to set a blockade will deter them from thinking they need to interfere in Iraq anymore then they all ready do. Plus its expensive to fill those ships up here its much cheaper there (win win).
So to go along with reborn i guess, its not like spitting in someones face or slapping someone upside the head. Its practicing hitting someone upside the head and then standing close enough to them to actually do it, should the need arise.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Comments
I'll be happy to. war with Iran will not happen. it will also not happen if McCain is president. a naval blockade is not war. neither is trash talking.
well actually, spyguy, under international law it is considered an act of war ... which is just a semantic shade away from war itself.
Back to the topic with
Yes. I agree it would make strange bedfellows indeed.
Heres the new rub i just got.
I've been seriously out of the loop for over a week. No cable. no internet. No Alex Jones. No Newspapers. Nothing. Busy moving.
Just talked with a friend who has been keeping up with the guests AJ has on regarding foreign policy and with websites, and he says the way he hears it Georgia (or rather US interests vis a vis Georgia) were unquestionably the aggressor.
Now i haven't yet had time to validate this,
but if that is true, it changes the game around significantly.
What i mean is,
that would dictate that the entire situation is a United States (or globalist) fabrication. That one interest was behind the Russian aggression and the continued aggravation of a middle easter aggression via pressures on Iran.
If that is the case,
then it would mean this is all part of some strange plan to force a war, or a cold war state, or some sort of paranoid media sensation that molds the peoples will for a political purpose.
The possibilities are endless down that road,
and they are all scary.
blech.
this sucks.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yea yea ok. according to you and alex jones we are officially at war. call me when we have troops on the ground.
hungry?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
this type of shit is allowed here?
no.
not a suprise to you,
seeing as how you are surely back from a ban yourself, eh?
i'm on my way out of this place,
anyhow.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
good. you seem a little high strung.
yeah, I'm sure you'll step up once we finally have "troops on the ground." but by then, it'll be "too late" to go "against" the U.S. and we'll have to continue giving money to the defense fund...
cycles just repeat and people don't notice...
He's the calm one of the bunch!
after having been gone a week, and returning,
i think i've been broken.
the unchecked aggression will not stand.
i'll just throw my punches, take my lumps and move on.
its not even worth it.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Driftin', dude, chill ... Your presence here is appreciated. Probably more than mine, actually. Lately, I so much as fart and someone accuses me of a personal attack.
just tell me what your old screen name was.
i just have to know.
really.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
didnt have one. sorry, I have over 20,000 posts on a different political board. I may be new here, but I'm not new to political message boards.
there are little brainwashed alex jones drones over there too. sorry if you felt "attacked" by my response to what war actually is.
how long of a ban does one get for posting a non-work friendly pop-up attached of a dick?
I second reborncareerist's sentiments here. Your presence is appreciated.
Hold on a sec...something smells...REBOOOORN!!! Stop with the personal attacks already. Man, I gotta get some fresh air.
I havent reported anyone, nor will I. the post is right there for everyone to see.
i didn't feel attacked.
i thought it was an idiotic statement.
its like saying spitting in a guys face isn't starting a fight, because the other guy threw the first punch.
A blockade is an ACT OF WAR.
What part of that don't you understand.
The ONLY thing that prevents it from actually BEING "war" is the RESPONSE or lack there of from the party that the AGRESSION was put upon.
Have fun with your semantic games,
and your insults.
a. its not a dick. its meat. food.
who knows, i thought you could be hungry.
b. how long? fuck it depends dude. we are highly subjective over here. how high\tired\sleepy\grumpy is the moderator, how much does he or she like you. how many times have you been an ass. what color is your favorite. WHO KNOWS.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sorry. I love curry, what can I say. Good with the bad and all that.
blah blah blah. spitting in someones face does nothing more then hurt an ego. hit him in the head with a baseball bat. well thats different.
well enjoy your time off. honestly, it looks like you need it.
If you've ever heard the song "The Chastising of Renegade" by Primus I had that voice he uses when saying "Renegaaaade, come here boy" in my head when I was calling you out. Just thought I'd state that to help set the mood for ya.
I like curry too.
yea, see WAR has clearly defined rules.
A naval blockade is an ACT OF WAR.
You can't fucking weasel your sly ass out of that.
Perhaps a better analogy would be slapping someone in the face with a glove and saying "i challenege you to a duel" and then trying to file a complaint with the authorities that you were shot.
You engaged in a activitiy with CLEARLY DEFINED RULES.
Which were followed.
Therefore it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS that if a war comes from this ACT OF WAR, that THE UNITED STATES STARTED THE WAR,
since they would be the party RESPONSIBLE for the ACT OF WAR.
I don't think you will find too many even of the self professed law scholars on this board disagree with this sentiment.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
To help add something more than my other random thoughts to the actual discussion at hand, I have this to say. Laying a seige on another foreign entity is an act of war. A seige is usually done to prevent resources from coming into the country/castle/whatever the fuck you are beseiging, so it is further weakened. A naval blockade is similar to this so I'd have to agree with Drifting.
What about UN sanctions? Are those an act of war as well?
Same logic ... Sanctions are intended to prevent resources from coming into a country. Did the UN declare war on Iraq with its sanctions after the 91 war, then? Did it declare war on South Africa with its sanctions during apartheid?
Mihi cura futuri.
The elements they speak to me.
http://espn.go.com/espnradiostations/NewYork1050/gallery/35218855.html
so cute they are
Those are done through an international policy\treaty organization.
Unlike this naval blockade that is done in SPITE of it.
I don't agree with sanctions either,
but they are, by the internationaly agreed law (the UN itself), "legal".
A naval blockade falls SEVERAL international treatise signed by all nations (well, if you count all the treatise, you get all the nations) ...
here ... BLOCKADE LAW ...
its not some shades of grey bullshit.
Its genuine matter of fact law.
Naval Blockade = ACT OF WAR.
Stop playing goddamn semantics, folks.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Yess....fucking smoke that shit...
Oh man....It's all going down nicely...
delicious.....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, do you guys want to have a fucking discussion or no? I am not into e-cock-stroking, sorry. Blowing off my point as semantics is an odd tactic, since you're whole argument that a blockade is war is based on ... Semantics!
I will take you one more level though, its not that we are going to set the blockade just that we practiced with the french and british navies on how to do it and then sent those ships along to the persian gulf. So now the Iranians are aware of what our plan probably is, and hopefully having the ships to set a blockade will deter them from thinking they need to interfere in Iraq anymore then they all ready do. Plus its expensive to fill those ships up here its much cheaper there (win win).
So to go along with reborn i guess, its not like spitting in someones face or slapping someone upside the head. Its practicing hitting someone upside the head and then standing close enough to them to actually do it, should the need arise.
— Socrates