Putin and Iran send us a message

13

Comments

  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    810wmb wrote:
    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Open wrote:
    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.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,424
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    like a needle and thread?
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.

    Kinda like this guy is talking about:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044069.stm
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Kinda like this guy is talking about:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044069.stm

    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."
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    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.
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    If Putin is Sting, then I can't find a character stand in for Ahmadinejad

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJJgM23gLh8
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    i disagree


    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
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    macgyver06 wrote:
    why is everyone creating them to be our worst enemy..
    what is the logic here...must the U.S. have an enemy at all times?

    Yes,
    IN ORDER TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION:
    US Constitution - Section 8 (on Powers of the Congress) wrote:
    "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
    US Constitution - Section 10 (on Limitations to the Powers of the State) wrote:
    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]:
    Federalist Paper #24 wrote:
    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:
    Federalist Papers #4 wrote:
    [...]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?
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    mammasan wrote:
    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...

    give me proof they aren't
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    810wmb wrote:
    give me a break...i disagree with all that you listed...

    give me proof they aren't

    but it would be on you to prove we have a good reason to attack them.
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    mammasan wrote:
    The fact that they are cooperating with the IAEA.


    after not cooperating
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    jlew24asu wrote:
    but it would be on you to prove we have a good reason to attack them.

    no it's not..
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    810wmb wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    after not cooperating

    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

Categories