No world leader, not even Kim Jong Il, is suicidal. Crazy maybe, but not suicidal. Everyone knows if they nuke us even once their country will become an uninhabitable wasteland overnight.
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.
I thought Putin was supposed to get assassinated in Iran. I guess he didn't buy into the hype..
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.
There is a flaw to your question and that is that Iran would never launch a nuclear assault on any country. Your fear of Iran is irrational, fueled by media propaganda of this fictious boogie-man who is hell bent on destroying the old red, white, and blue. To this day there is absolutely no proof that Iran is using their nuclear program for anything other than civilian purposes. All this talk from this administration is nothing more than fear-mongering so that the uninformed masses can nod in agreement to our continued military presence and build up in the region. It's all about oil baby, us, Russia, China know that it's running out and we are flexing our muscle and wiping it out to see who has the bigger dick so we can have control of what's left. It has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program. It has everything to do with Iran's close relationship with China and Russia. We want a pro-US government in there so we can have first dips.
if you think that iran wouldn't sell a dirty bomb, or any other for that matter, to terrorists, you need to rethink things.
Just like we sell weapons to Israel so they can bomb beirute and threaten to bomb Iran?
Your arguments just show how much like "them" you are. It's b/c of people with the mindset like you on both sides, that we are in the situation we're in.
Just like we sell weapons to Israel so they can bomb beirute and threaten to bomb Iran?
Your arguments just show how much like "them" you are. It's b/c of people with the mindset like you on both sides, that we are in the situation we're in.
I just have to ask...was it a message in a bottle?
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.
the world is one big playground, just that the stakes are higher
so are you saying we should be the schoolyard bully that beats up the rest and takes their lunch money? what a good idea. that strategy has worked so brilliantly so far.
seriously, being a hawk does nothing but inflame the situation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
thats funny. you think china is the "top dog" in the world? I admit, they have potential, but they are decades behind
Actually, no i should have been more clear. If he's so worried about other countries coming after the "top dog", then he should be worried about China, b/c they have the means.
the world is one big playground, just that the stakes are higher
This explains a lot about your way of thinking. Maybe you should try turning off the teletubbies and get yourself out into the real world. Iran, for example. I reckon your wish to have the place obliterated may change after you'd spent some time there, interacting with the people.
A fella I used to work with in my last job back in London used to go to Iran about twice a year for a holiday. He was a white Englishman, but he said he loved the place and it's people.
Actually, no i should have been more clear. If he's so worried about other countries coming after the "top dog", then he should be worried about China, b/c they have the means.
chinas not a thread to us. but they are a thread to the world. sad how mammason is the only one who exposes that country for the damage they cause.
chinas not a thread to us. but they are a thread to the world. sad how mammason is the only one who exposes that country for the damage they cause.
china is not a threat to us. but they are becoming a new economic superpower. they have over a billion people and a massive military, and if a war ever did break out where we were on opposite sides i would be very leary about opposing them. i don't think we should be poking the snake with a stick at this point.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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.
This explains a lot about your way of thinking. Maybe you should try turning off the teletubbies and get yourself out into the real world. Iran, for example. I reckon your wish to have the place obliterated may change after you'd spent some time there, interacting with the people.
A fella I used to work with in my last job back in London used to go to Iran about twice a year for a holiday. He was a white Englishman, but he said he loved the place and it's people.
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.
"Inevitably in a military occupation, there are likely to be those engaged in resistance."
These people may be labelled terrorists, Mr Dugard added, but history treats them differently.
He cited the example of the French Resistance during World War II, and those in Namibia who fought occupation by South Africa.
"Now," he said, "they are in government and treated as heroes."
this documentary does a fair bit to explain the severity of the situation. It's shot by Israeli soldiers, and explains what Mr Dugard is talking about re: limited or restricted movement. Pretty ridiculous.
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.
china is not a threat to us. but they are becoming a new economic superpower. they have over a billion people and a massive military, and if a war ever did break out where we were on opposite sides i would be very leary about opposing them. i don't think we should be poking the snake with a stick at this point.
Thanks for getting my point across better than I could. Essentialy, if there is someone who can topple us it would be China for the reasons listed above. By 810's logic (which i dont subscribe to) we should be worried about them.
I firmly believe this too. no way will we go to war with Iran. too many reasons for it to be impossible. lack of resources, entire administration leaving in a year, no support from congress, the american people, the world, no PROOF, Iraq failures, and so on...
both of your statements are dead on.
War and a couple of days of bombing are a little different. Not to the people on the ground, but to the cheerleaders in the home arena.
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.
OK, so provide me some proof that supports your theory that Iran is producing uranium for nuclear weapons and that they indeed intend to use them on Israel or us.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
IF YOU THINK THAT ISN'T EXPLICIT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT AS RELATES TO KEEPING TROOPS IN TIMES OF PEACE, I OFFER YOU THIS EXCERPT FROM THE FEDERALIST PAPER #24 WHICH TRIED TO ARGUE THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD PROTECT AGAINST SUCH TROOPS IN TIMES OF PEACE[bold added by myself, all-caps existed in original pen]:
To THE powers proposed to be conferred upon the federal government, in respect to the creation and direction of the national forces, I have met with but one specific objection, which, if I understand it right, is this, that proper provision has not been made against the existence of standing armies in time of peace; an objection which, I shall now endeavor to show, rests on weak and unsubstantial foundations.
FYI, these are the papers argued by Hamilton and Madison for the ratification of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, they were slightly off base in their argument, as current military dominance of America has proven that such "adequate checks" for the existence of standing armies have failed us.
ALSO FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE,
LEST YOU THINK OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WEREN'T AWARE OF THE BEGINNINGS OF THE "MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" AND PHONY WARS, HERE IS ANOTHER FEDERALIST:
[...]for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
OK, so provide me some proof that supports your theory that Iran is producing uranium for nuclear weapons and that they indeed intend to use them on Israel or us.
give me a break...i disagree with all that you listed...
What matters is that they are cooperating now and continue to do so. As long as they are I see no reason to believe that they are using their nuclear program for anything else besides civilian use.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
this is much ado about nothing.
The evil middle east...lol...always up to nothing but evil when we sleep...
Boo!
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)
(")_(")
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)
(")_(")
i disagree
i agree, but it ain't gonna be solved, so that puts us in the middle of it.
the dude wants israel gone, we are allies sooo...
Just like we sell weapons to Israel so they can bomb beirute and threaten to bomb Iran?
Your arguments just show how much like "them" you are. It's b/c of people with the mindset like you on both sides, that we are in the situation we're in.
people like me?
hahahhahhahaha
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)
(")_(")
so are you saying we should be the schoolyard bully that beats up the rest and takes their lunch money? what a good idea. that strategy has worked so brilliantly so far.
seriously, being a hawk does nothing but inflame the situation.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Actually, no i should have been more clear. If he's so worried about other countries coming after the "top dog", then he should be worried about China, b/c they have the means.
This explains a lot about your way of thinking. Maybe you should try turning off the teletubbies and get yourself out into the real world. Iran, for example. I reckon your wish to have the place obliterated may change after you'd spent some time there, interacting with the people.
A fella I used to work with in my last job back in London used to go to Iran about twice a year for a holiday. He was a white Englishman, but he said he loved the place and it's people.
chinas not a thread to us. but they are a thread to the world. sad how mammason is the only one who exposes that country for the damage they cause.
china is not a threat to us. but they are becoming a new economic superpower. they have over a billion people and a massive military, and if a war ever did break out where we were on opposite sides i would be very leary about opposing them. i don't think we should be poking the snake with a stick at this point.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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)
(")_(")
Kinda like this guy is talking about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044069.stm
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)
(")_(")
About time. And too true....
"Inevitably in a military occupation, there are likely to be those engaged in resistance."
These people may be labelled terrorists, Mr Dugard added, but history treats them differently.
He cited the example of the French Resistance during World War II, and those in Namibia who fought occupation by South Africa.
"Now," he said, "they are in government and treated as heroes."
this documentary does a fair bit to explain the severity of the situation. It's shot by Israeli soldiers, and explains what Mr Dugard is talking about re: limited or restricted movement. Pretty ridiculous.
(review and description)
http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2004/checkpoint.php
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)
(")_(")
Thanks for getting my point across better than I could. Essentialy, if there is someone who can topple us it would be China for the reasons listed above. By 810's logic (which i dont subscribe to) we should be worried about them.
War and a couple of days of bombing are a little different. Not to the people on the ground, but to the cheerleaders in the home arena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJJgM23gLh8
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)
(")_(")
OK, so provide me some proof that supports your theory that Iran is producing uranium for nuclear weapons and that they indeed intend to use them on Israel or us.
Yes,
IN ORDER TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION:
IF YOU THINK THAT ISN'T EXPLICIT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT AS RELATES TO KEEPING TROOPS IN TIMES OF PEACE, I OFFER YOU THIS EXCERPT FROM THE FEDERALIST PAPER #24 WHICH TRIED TO ARGUE THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD PROTECT AGAINST SUCH TROOPS IN TIMES OF PEACE[bold added by myself, all-caps existed in original pen]:
FYI, these are the papers argued by Hamilton and Madison for the ratification of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, they were slightly off base in their argument, as current military dominance of America has proven that such "adequate checks" for the existence of standing armies have failed us.
ALSO FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE,
LEST YOU THINK OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WEREN'T AWARE OF THE BEGINNINGS OF THE "MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" AND PHONY WARS, HERE IS ANOTHER FEDERALIST:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
give me a break...i disagree with all that you listed...
give me proof they aren't
The fact that they are cooperating with the IAEA.
but it would be on you to prove we have a good reason to attack them.
after not cooperating
no it's not..
if I walk up to you and punch you in the face, i'm sure you would demand a (factual) reason why I did that.
What matters is that they are cooperating now and continue to do so. As long as they are I see no reason to believe that they are using their nuclear program for anything else besides civilian use.