Jester;829080 wrote: Does it surprise me that the government of Iran hates the US not at all, but there is growing sentiment among the common sense folks in Iran that wishes they had the Shaw back.There, you just did it again. You just made something up because you'd love it to be true. It's not, not even slightly. Show me anything at all which backs up that suggestion that there's any sort of movement in Iran which wishes they had the Shah back. The Shah of Iran, the puppet ruler for US interests for a quarter of a century, stands at the forefront of the detested tyrants of his generation.
Neither could President Carter have kept the man in power. He and the ten-thousand-strong Savak torture apparatus couldn't do it on the ground, how do you suppose President Carter could have managed it? By authorizing an assassination of the Ayatollah before the flight of the Shah from Tehran? I don't think that would have put things off by so much as a day.
Military build-up nears completion
Military build-up nears completion
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military build-up nears completion
posted by jester
Eisenhower did what he thought was right at the time, Ms Albrieght and her big mouth and anti-amercian opinions dont help things much. If I were standing in front of her when she disparaged the US I'd have almost slapped her. (but thats another issue)
Hindsight is wonderful. isn't it. Too bad many can't seem to see the consequences of past policies in what is happening to day and just kid themselves there is no connection.
Maybe you would like some words from the man himself.
and a more recent take on it all.
I don't think there's any fascist conspiracy or anything like that. Personally i can't see the american people allowing their govt to wage open war on a country that hasn't attacked them. Mind you i didn't think anyone would be taken in by Tony Blair either but many were. Bring back cynicism I say. Don't trust politicians.
Eisenhower did what he thought was right at the time, Ms Albrieght and her big mouth and anti-amercian opinions dont help things much. If I were standing in front of her when she disparaged the US I'd have almost slapped her. (but thats another issue)
Hindsight is wonderful. isn't it. Too bad many can't seem to see the consequences of past policies in what is happening to day and just kid themselves there is no connection.
Maybe you would like some words from the man himself.
and a more recent take on it all.
I don't think there's any fascist conspiracy or anything like that. Personally i can't see the american people allowing their govt to wage open war on a country that hasn't attacked them. Mind you i didn't think anyone would be taken in by Tony Blair either but many were. Bring back cynicism I say. Don't trust politicians.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;829788 wrote:
I dont see us attacking Iran either, not yet anyway, the american people for the most part have lost thier way, we are partly spoiled, partly lied to, and then mostly controlled by what the liberal media demonstrate as the 'norm'.
.
Not sure what youmean there. What liberal media? Not that I actually see most of your news programmes and I'm not sure CNN counts as being typical. What I do see trawling around seems pretty right wing to me with very little analysis.
We need to pull back, let the rest of the world go to hell then clean up in the end, but we wont, we will continiue to meddle in other countries affairs instead of just wipe them out and not look back.
The world got on quite well without the united states for a very long time and i dare say it will again. You seem to have a rather exaggerated idea of the importance of the US. The importance of the US economy as a driving force is going to lessen in the years to come anyway.
If Obama gets in it will be four and out, as he messes with the social fabric of this country folks will hate him for it. If McCain gets in it will be 8 more years of medocrity... either way America will just barely fledge along. There are no leaders, no real leaders, on the horizon for america.
As an outsider it seems that you are about to have the kind of discussions about social welfare that we had in europe fifty or so years ago about social welfare and the role of government etc etc. social fabric changes all the time, it's not a bad thing, societies that don't change stagnate. after all it's no likely to be as violent as the civil rights changes in the sixties if you can just get away from the hang up about liberals and realise the US is one of the most liberal countries on earth thanks to all that European influence in your history and you actually hold fundamental liberal values most dear. If you value liberty and individual freedom then at heart you are a liberal.:sneaky:
Of course we will survive, but it will continue to be dismal, except for those few of use who will ink out the opportunities that made amercia great, those things still exist in america, its just harder to find them and you have to fight more and sacrfiice to make it work.
or a closet fascist i can't make up my mind.
I dont see us attacking Iran either, not yet anyway, the american people for the most part have lost thier way, we are partly spoiled, partly lied to, and then mostly controlled by what the liberal media demonstrate as the 'norm'.
.
Not sure what youmean there. What liberal media? Not that I actually see most of your news programmes and I'm not sure CNN counts as being typical. What I do see trawling around seems pretty right wing to me with very little analysis.
We need to pull back, let the rest of the world go to hell then clean up in the end, but we wont, we will continiue to meddle in other countries affairs instead of just wipe them out and not look back.
The world got on quite well without the united states for a very long time and i dare say it will again. You seem to have a rather exaggerated idea of the importance of the US. The importance of the US economy as a driving force is going to lessen in the years to come anyway.
If Obama gets in it will be four and out, as he messes with the social fabric of this country folks will hate him for it. If McCain gets in it will be 8 more years of medocrity... either way America will just barely fledge along. There are no leaders, no real leaders, on the horizon for america.
As an outsider it seems that you are about to have the kind of discussions about social welfare that we had in europe fifty or so years ago about social welfare and the role of government etc etc. social fabric changes all the time, it's not a bad thing, societies that don't change stagnate. after all it's no likely to be as violent as the civil rights changes in the sixties if you can just get away from the hang up about liberals and realise the US is one of the most liberal countries on earth thanks to all that European influence in your history and you actually hold fundamental liberal values most dear. If you value liberty and individual freedom then at heart you are a liberal.:sneaky:
Of course we will survive, but it will continue to be dismal, except for those few of use who will ink out the opportunities that made amercia great, those things still exist in america, its just harder to find them and you have to fight more and sacrfiice to make it work.
or a closet fascist i can't make up my mind.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Military build-up nears completion
Make a person responsible for thier own healthcare and their own selves in every way possible, I have no idea what that falls under in your classification of liberal-conservative, but here in the US thats not liberal.
In British terms that's ultra liberal. However, British liberalism also has another strand, which is about helping the disadvantaged. This strand traces its roots back to William Wilberforce, who created the anti-slavery movement and won a thirty year battle to achieve the Slave Trade Act. He was also a devoutly religious man.
In British terms that's ultra liberal. However, British liberalism also has another strand, which is about helping the disadvantaged. This strand traces its roots back to William Wilberforce, who created the anti-slavery movement and won a thirty year battle to achieve the Slave Trade Act. He was also a devoutly religious man.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;829788 wrote:
I dont see us attacking Iran either, not yet anyway, the american people for the most part have lost thier way, we are partly spoiled, partly lied to, and then mostly controlled by what the liberal media demonstrate as the 'norm'.
We need to pull back, let the rest of the world go to hell then clean up in the end, but we wont, we will continiue to meddle in other countries affairs instead of just wipe them out and not look back.
I beg to differ. You have already started a war, they just didn't respond. Surrounding a country with first strike weaponry is an act of war.
Turn the tables for a second. Imagine China deployed a number of warships sufficient to threaten the entire US and parked them on your coastline. What would you do? Would those ships even get their anchors down before they were blasted out of the water?
I dont see us attacking Iran either, not yet anyway, the american people for the most part have lost thier way, we are partly spoiled, partly lied to, and then mostly controlled by what the liberal media demonstrate as the 'norm'.
We need to pull back, let the rest of the world go to hell then clean up in the end, but we wont, we will continiue to meddle in other countries affairs instead of just wipe them out and not look back.
I beg to differ. You have already started a war, they just didn't respond. Surrounding a country with first strike weaponry is an act of war.
Turn the tables for a second. Imagine China deployed a number of warships sufficient to threaten the entire US and parked them on your coastline. What would you do? Would those ships even get their anchors down before they were blasted out of the water?
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;830222 wrote: China's not that stupid, nor have they demonstrated agressiveness to that extent to the US in many, many years.
Not as stupid as the US? :wah:
The question remains: if they did to the US what the US is doing to Iran, wouldn't you treat that aggressiveness as an act of war?
Koan you seem to think that the world plays fair, you think that if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and it wont work that way, too late, even to try it. We're in it up to our necks, and its not going to change. I dont care how its viewed to or by anyone. We will or we wont attack in our own good time.
The change of command/fleet is nothing more than an opportunity to intimidate Iran. If Iran fears us that much then let them try to attack us. And BTW, they havent shown restraint because they are a noble peaceful people, they show restraint because they know they will get thier butts kicked big time. They are afraid.
I'm not saying that it's fair... I'm saying that regulations were set up to constrain paranoia and keep one country from starting a world war based on possibilities alone. If Iran or Iraq, neither of whom have terrorized the US, actually did strike against the US somehow it would have minimal effect. Despite that, the US has razed one country and is lowering the scopes on the other. Intimidation creates hostility. If you want to avoid being targeted by hatred then don't intimidate. If you want to intimidate than prepare for your country to be hated.
Breeding terrorists. That's the only area the US has perfected in the art of war.
Not as stupid as the US? :wah:
The question remains: if they did to the US what the US is doing to Iran, wouldn't you treat that aggressiveness as an act of war?
Koan you seem to think that the world plays fair, you think that if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and it wont work that way, too late, even to try it. We're in it up to our necks, and its not going to change. I dont care how its viewed to or by anyone. We will or we wont attack in our own good time.
The change of command/fleet is nothing more than an opportunity to intimidate Iran. If Iran fears us that much then let them try to attack us. And BTW, they havent shown restraint because they are a noble peaceful people, they show restraint because they know they will get thier butts kicked big time. They are afraid.
I'm not saying that it's fair... I'm saying that regulations were set up to constrain paranoia and keep one country from starting a world war based on possibilities alone. If Iran or Iraq, neither of whom have terrorized the US, actually did strike against the US somehow it would have minimal effect. Despite that, the US has razed one country and is lowering the scopes on the other. Intimidation creates hostility. If you want to avoid being targeted by hatred then don't intimidate. If you want to intimidate than prepare for your country to be hated.
Breeding terrorists. That's the only area the US has perfected in the art of war.
Military build-up nears completion
You still have no reason to stop Iran from deploying nuclear missiles. They're defensive weapons, they always (World War 2 excepted) have been defensive. It's impossible for any country to use nuclear missiles without retributive destruction. Israel's arsenal is defensive, the US and Russian and French and Indian and Pakistani arsenals are defensive, so would Iran's be by the very nature of nuclear missiles.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;831018 wrote: No, china isnt stupid enough to try it given thier limited power.
Fine, if you want toe hate us go ahead, I really dont care anymore who perciives what about the US, I'm not in a PC poularity contest. Im here to destroy my enemies, if you dont like it stay clear or side with them. Either way we'll end up fighting about it.
Iran is building nukes, (yes they are) when the first one is near completion we will bomb them. When we do then you can whine all you want. Until then the rest is posturing, nothing more.
But faint not your heart dear Koan, in the next election we will hire a liberal social pascifist named Obama, or a medicore liberal middle liner named McCain. Either way you wont have anything to worry about. And my country will slip deeper into complacency until we are attacked again.
So looky there, you win!
And there are no regulations in war.
The Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions, The Geneva Protocols?
Even the US recognise them - they signed up to the Geneva Conventions is 1882.
This is nothing to do with popularity competitions, Jester, if a country goes out of its way to make enemies then it will get hurt - whether by direct military attack (unlikely in the case of the USA), further terrorist attacks or economic boycott. Deliberately setting out to become the most hated country in the world (which it is not but could easily become if this insistence on the use of pre-emptive first strikes continues) is stupid and self defeating.
BTW - even your own inspectors could find no evidence of a programme to develop weapons grade materials.
Fine, if you want toe hate us go ahead, I really dont care anymore who perciives what about the US, I'm not in a PC poularity contest. Im here to destroy my enemies, if you dont like it stay clear or side with them. Either way we'll end up fighting about it.
Iran is building nukes, (yes they are) when the first one is near completion we will bomb them. When we do then you can whine all you want. Until then the rest is posturing, nothing more.
But faint not your heart dear Koan, in the next election we will hire a liberal social pascifist named Obama, or a medicore liberal middle liner named McCain. Either way you wont have anything to worry about. And my country will slip deeper into complacency until we are attacked again.
So looky there, you win!
And there are no regulations in war.
The Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions, The Geneva Protocols?
Even the US recognise them - they signed up to the Geneva Conventions is 1882.
This is nothing to do with popularity competitions, Jester, if a country goes out of its way to make enemies then it will get hurt - whether by direct military attack (unlikely in the case of the USA), further terrorist attacks or economic boycott. Deliberately setting out to become the most hated country in the world (which it is not but could easily become if this insistence on the use of pre-emptive first strikes continues) is stupid and self defeating.
BTW - even your own inspectors could find no evidence of a programme to develop weapons grade materials.
Military build-up nears completion
In terms of the Nuclear issue, the reason why Iran will not be allowed to posses Nuclear weapons under any pretext are as follows.
1. Nuclear weapons are (as spot mentioned) not a practical weapon of first strike, however, should a Nuclear-armed Iran decide to invade Iraq or Afganistan for that matter, or also to continue to build up its already massive support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and perhaps launch a proxy populist war against the Jews then it will be much harder for the regional and global powers to deal with them, as in order to attack a Nuclear Iran effectively you would need to be prepared to use Nuclear weapons in a massive first strike causing untold death and destruction against the country as well as an environmental catastrophe, and also to accept that Iran in its extremity would attempt to bomb Israel at least, and probably Saudi Arabia also, that cannot be allowed to happen as it allows Iran to put about half the world's oil reserves, the population of Iran itself and several other large Muslim countries, and most of the regions Jews under hostage.
Now you can counter and say that the existing powers already have this ability, and its not fair to Iran, my counter argument is, since when do you base your geopolitical stability on being fair and giving everyone a fair crack at launching nuclear armageddon? By that logic every nation should be given the right to obliterate every other nation, it would be fairer alright, but also suicide.
The second reason is Nuclear proliferation, the Iranians are not trusted to be responsible with nuclear weapons, and not just the Americans feel this, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis no one wants to see the Iranian regime with a bomb, as its too hard to make the calculation of what they would do if they possesed them, and it simply won't be allowed to happen one way or the other, if the Iranians attempt to finalize a nuclear weapsons program they will be attacked, no matter who the US president is.
1. Nuclear weapons are (as spot mentioned) not a practical weapon of first strike, however, should a Nuclear-armed Iran decide to invade Iraq or Afganistan for that matter, or also to continue to build up its already massive support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and perhaps launch a proxy populist war against the Jews then it will be much harder for the regional and global powers to deal with them, as in order to attack a Nuclear Iran effectively you would need to be prepared to use Nuclear weapons in a massive first strike causing untold death and destruction against the country as well as an environmental catastrophe, and also to accept that Iran in its extremity would attempt to bomb Israel at least, and probably Saudi Arabia also, that cannot be allowed to happen as it allows Iran to put about half the world's oil reserves, the population of Iran itself and several other large Muslim countries, and most of the regions Jews under hostage.
Now you can counter and say that the existing powers already have this ability, and its not fair to Iran, my counter argument is, since when do you base your geopolitical stability on being fair and giving everyone a fair crack at launching nuclear armageddon? By that logic every nation should be given the right to obliterate every other nation, it would be fairer alright, but also suicide.
The second reason is Nuclear proliferation, the Iranians are not trusted to be responsible with nuclear weapons, and not just the Americans feel this, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis no one wants to see the Iranian regime with a bomb, as its too hard to make the calculation of what they would do if they possesed them, and it simply won't be allowed to happen one way or the other, if the Iranians attempt to finalize a nuclear weapsons program they will be attacked, no matter who the US president is.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Military build-up nears completion
And what do you make of the US Intelligence assessment ("prepared by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies") that Iran's nuclear weapons program was abandoned in 2003 (Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities")?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military build-up nears completion
spot;831552 wrote: And what do you make of the US Intelligence assessment ("prepared by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies") that Iran's nuclear weapons program was abandoned in 2003 (Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities")?
Oh its probably as accurate as the ones on Iraq. I am not saying that Iran is at the point of making weapons right now, as I don't have a clue about that I'm just a private citizen, (given what happened with Iraq WMDs it would be very hard to trust the official line on any of this either) and I am also not cheerleading for war, I am just saying why I think that should a situation arise where Iran is at the point of having a weapon system almost ready, then there will be an attack from whatever party, most likely of course the US navy, but also possibly the Israeli air force.
Oh its probably as accurate as the ones on Iraq. I am not saying that Iran is at the point of making weapons right now, as I don't have a clue about that I'm just a private citizen, (given what happened with Iraq WMDs it would be very hard to trust the official line on any of this either) and I am also not cheerleading for war, I am just saying why I think that should a situation arise where Iran is at the point of having a weapon system almost ready, then there will be an attack from whatever party, most likely of course the US navy, but also possibly the Israeli air force.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Military build-up nears completion
The ones on Iraq were made under massive sustained pressure from the White House to do what they were told to do and find what they were told to find. This report was in the teeth of White House outrage. The credibility of both should be in light of those circumstances.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;830186 wrote: I would have fought against slavery had I lived in that era, no doubt about it. Thanks for clarifying, each time GMC quotes me as a liberal I get the willies, maybe this Wilberforce is the guy then who send them to me? 
See:eek: at heart you are a dangerous radical that believes in freedom and equality for all. You probably believe everybody should be allowed to vote and have a say on government, even if you don't agree with them-even women perhaps.
Way off topic but the term liberal seems to have been turned in to an insult in the US when in fact I suspect most americans would place liberal values high on he agenda when asked what kind of society they want to live in.
posted by galbally
In terms of the Nuclear issue, the reason why Iran will not be allowed to posses Nuclear weapons under any pretext are as follows.
1. Nuclear weapons are (as spot mentioned) not a practical weapon of first strike, however, should a Nuclear-armed Iran decide to invade Iraq or Afganistan for that matter, or also to continue to build up its already massive support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and perhaps launch a proxy populist war against the Jews then it will be much harder for the regional and global powers to deal with them, as in order to attack a Nuclear Iran effectively you would need to be prepared to use Nuclear weapons in a massive first strike causing untold death and destruction against the country as well as an environmental catastrophe, and also to accept that Iran in its extremity would attempt to bomb Israel at least, and probably Saudi Arabia also, that cannot be allowed to happen as it allows Iran to put about half the world's oil reserves, the population of Iran itself and several other large Muslim countries, and most of the regions Jews under hostage.
Now you can counter and say that the existing powers already have this ability, and its not fair to Iran, my counter argument is, since when do you base your geopolitical stability on being fair and giving everyone a fair crack at launching nuclear armageddon? By that logic every nation should be given the right to obliterate every other nation, it would be fairer alright, but also suicide.
The second reason is Nuclear proliferation, the Iranians are not trusted to be responsible with nuclear weapons, and not just the Americans feel this, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis no one wants to see the Iranian regime with a bomb, as its too hard to make the calculation of what they would do if they possesed them, and it simply won't be allowed to happen one way or the other, if the Iranians attempt to finalize a nuclear weapsons program they will be attacked, no matter who the US president is.
Good points. But I reckon the present approach to the problem makes it more likely that iran will try for nuclear weapons and actually sustains the radicals in power. It's a classic approach of an oppressive regime to use external enemies or made up ones to distract and divide dissent at home and unify opponents behind those in power while giving an excuse to shut them up. Hitler did it with the jews and communists, galtieri tried t with the falklands and fell on his face. However much moderates in iran may object to the regime they will all support it if attacked by outsiders. If left alone the natural political process would be a moderation in iranian politics with less extreme groups getting control.
See:eek: at heart you are a dangerous radical that believes in freedom and equality for all. You probably believe everybody should be allowed to vote and have a say on government, even if you don't agree with them-even women perhaps.
Way off topic but the term liberal seems to have been turned in to an insult in the US when in fact I suspect most americans would place liberal values high on he agenda when asked what kind of society they want to live in.
posted by galbally
In terms of the Nuclear issue, the reason why Iran will not be allowed to posses Nuclear weapons under any pretext are as follows.
1. Nuclear weapons are (as spot mentioned) not a practical weapon of first strike, however, should a Nuclear-armed Iran decide to invade Iraq or Afganistan for that matter, or also to continue to build up its already massive support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and perhaps launch a proxy populist war against the Jews then it will be much harder for the regional and global powers to deal with them, as in order to attack a Nuclear Iran effectively you would need to be prepared to use Nuclear weapons in a massive first strike causing untold death and destruction against the country as well as an environmental catastrophe, and also to accept that Iran in its extremity would attempt to bomb Israel at least, and probably Saudi Arabia also, that cannot be allowed to happen as it allows Iran to put about half the world's oil reserves, the population of Iran itself and several other large Muslim countries, and most of the regions Jews under hostage.
Now you can counter and say that the existing powers already have this ability, and its not fair to Iran, my counter argument is, since when do you base your geopolitical stability on being fair and giving everyone a fair crack at launching nuclear armageddon? By that logic every nation should be given the right to obliterate every other nation, it would be fairer alright, but also suicide.
The second reason is Nuclear proliferation, the Iranians are not trusted to be responsible with nuclear weapons, and not just the Americans feel this, the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis no one wants to see the Iranian regime with a bomb, as its too hard to make the calculation of what they would do if they possesed them, and it simply won't be allowed to happen one way or the other, if the Iranians attempt to finalize a nuclear weapsons program they will be attacked, no matter who the US president is.
Good points. But I reckon the present approach to the problem makes it more likely that iran will try for nuclear weapons and actually sustains the radicals in power. It's a classic approach of an oppressive regime to use external enemies or made up ones to distract and divide dissent at home and unify opponents behind those in power while giving an excuse to shut them up. Hitler did it with the jews and communists, galtieri tried t with the falklands and fell on his face. However much moderates in iran may object to the regime they will all support it if attacked by outsiders. If left alone the natural political process would be a moderation in iranian politics with less extreme groups getting control.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;831402 wrote: Wrong, the second someone uses them first they are first strike weapons, those that have them now have primiarily used them as threats (except the US).
When Iran gets them they will use them as first stirke weapons but not in the traditional sense, they will use them as dirty bombs, and continue the effect of terror by proxy.
Ya'll can say whatever you want about Iran, and their so called non-nuke nuke program, they are the swarn enemy of the United States by jihad. They do not set conditions by Jihad, they have no agenda of compromise, they only want to kill or dominate. They will not stop till they are a world power and then at such time will forward Islam by force. I will swear now that I will do all I can to stop them, in any way I can preemptively if necessary and with nuclear weapons if I must.
Ya'll better hope I dont ascend to any military post or ever have the ear of the POTUS.
The rest of you willing to wait can do so.
If Iran wanted to make a dirty bomb then they would have done so years ago - the making of a dirty bomb does not depend on having nuclear capability, just of having nuclear material which they've had for a long time.
Your assessment of the military situation is seriously flawed and, I agree, the world should seriously hope that you never gain any power or influence.
When Iran gets them they will use them as first stirke weapons but not in the traditional sense, they will use them as dirty bombs, and continue the effect of terror by proxy.
Ya'll can say whatever you want about Iran, and their so called non-nuke nuke program, they are the swarn enemy of the United States by jihad. They do not set conditions by Jihad, they have no agenda of compromise, they only want to kill or dominate. They will not stop till they are a world power and then at such time will forward Islam by force. I will swear now that I will do all I can to stop them, in any way I can preemptively if necessary and with nuclear weapons if I must.
Ya'll better hope I dont ascend to any military post or ever have the ear of the POTUS.
The rest of you willing to wait can do so.
If Iran wanted to make a dirty bomb then they would have done so years ago - the making of a dirty bomb does not depend on having nuclear capability, just of having nuclear material which they've had for a long time.
Your assessment of the military situation is seriously flawed and, I agree, the world should seriously hope that you never gain any power or influence.
Military build-up nears completion
Iran is installing new centrifuges for uranium enrichment, in defiance of UN demands that he halt their nuclear program. Mixed in to his speech during festivities, Ahmadinejad refers to the WTC events as pretext for interfering with other countries and seems to be piggybacking on some of the American persistence for a proper investigation of the 11 September attacks.
story
For those who believe that the science behind the WTC attacks is hiding a deeper secret, it is an open wound to have poked. Any US complicity in the attacks on their own soil would expose resulting invasions as planned destruction of innocent populations.
Without just pshawing it away, Jester, do you realise that there are architects and engineers in your own country committed to proving that the terrorist attacks were manufactured? People who know about buildings and what can and can't happen to them are yelling to be heard. If they are right, your own government turns all other terrorist factions into kindergarten. This is serious stuff. I have no idea how the US government can deign to accuse other nations when the American people are still in doubt as to whether or not their own government are war criminals.
story
For those who believe that the science behind the WTC attacks is hiding a deeper secret, it is an open wound to have poked. Any US complicity in the attacks on their own soil would expose resulting invasions as planned destruction of innocent populations.
Without just pshawing it away, Jester, do you realise that there are architects and engineers in your own country committed to proving that the terrorist attacks were manufactured? People who know about buildings and what can and can't happen to them are yelling to be heard. If they are right, your own government turns all other terrorist factions into kindergarten. This is serious stuff. I have no idea how the US government can deign to accuse other nations when the American people are still in doubt as to whether or not their own government are war criminals.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;831408 wrote: Yeah theres a stupid bunch of inspectors huh? Sheesh I wonder who paid them off?
The same people as paid off the inspectors looking for WMDs in Iraq?
So your own inspectors fail to find a nuclear weapons programme therefore they must be corrupt - who next? The president because he hasn't invaded yet another country? Have you considered the possibility that the reason they did not find evidence of a nuclear weapons programme might be because there is no such programme?
Jester;831408 wrote: Those are self limiting rules of engagement, the truth is that when it comes to winning there are no rules, if we had to to win we'd break everyoneof those rules in a heartbeat. You and spot have said many times the the 'terrorists' are fighting in the only way they can against the coalition forces, see, no rules. The only one following any rules is the coalition forces, and those are self limiting, not universal.
If this is true then the US is indeed a sponsor of state terrorism and deserves to be made a pariah nation.
Jester;831408 wrote: When it comes to the protection of my poeple I will absolutely ignore everyone who gets in my way. Or kill them if they stand too close in.
Define maniac - oh, sorry, you just have. A total disregard for the lives of any innocent who might get in the way of your aggression.
Jester;831408 wrote: Ya'll refuse to understand the nature of the jihadist, there is no negotiation, they dont give any objectives except for total distruction or domination. Thats thier nature. Fanatacism, they are crazy.
How much negotiation has crept into your proposed solutions? You've suggested total destruction or domination as the only possible solution several times. You are, by your own definition, a crazy fanatic.
The same people as paid off the inspectors looking for WMDs in Iraq?
So your own inspectors fail to find a nuclear weapons programme therefore they must be corrupt - who next? The president because he hasn't invaded yet another country? Have you considered the possibility that the reason they did not find evidence of a nuclear weapons programme might be because there is no such programme?
Jester;831408 wrote: Those are self limiting rules of engagement, the truth is that when it comes to winning there are no rules, if we had to to win we'd break everyoneof those rules in a heartbeat. You and spot have said many times the the 'terrorists' are fighting in the only way they can against the coalition forces, see, no rules. The only one following any rules is the coalition forces, and those are self limiting, not universal.
If this is true then the US is indeed a sponsor of state terrorism and deserves to be made a pariah nation.
Jester;831408 wrote: When it comes to the protection of my poeple I will absolutely ignore everyone who gets in my way. Or kill them if they stand too close in.
Define maniac - oh, sorry, you just have. A total disregard for the lives of any innocent who might get in the way of your aggression.
Jester;831408 wrote: Ya'll refuse to understand the nature of the jihadist, there is no negotiation, they dont give any objectives except for total distruction or domination. Thats thier nature. Fanatacism, they are crazy.
How much negotiation has crept into your proposed solutions? You've suggested total destruction or domination as the only possible solution several times. You are, by your own definition, a crazy fanatic.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;832147 wrote: Well there ya go...
Acting in response to a threat is now terrorism. I have never said to kill the innocent, if you stop me from killing my enemies you become one, your protecting them, dont do that.
The course the jihadist takes is well known to each of them that decide to die in order to promote thier radical ways, the way to stop them is to grant them the do course of thier choice and kill them. I have always said that if they stop acting out in Jihad, and denounce it then I'd not make them my enemy. Thats not a radical ideology, thats called being just.
Acting against international treaties to which you are signatories is terrorism when it involves attacking other nations.
If I might quote from the post you are replying to :-
Originally Posted by Jester
When it comes to the protection of my poeple I will absolutely ignore everyone who gets in my way. Or kill them if they stand too close in.
If this is not a direct statement that you would kill anyone who happens to be in your way, innocent or not, then I don't know what is.
So they have to submit before you'll talk to them - don't you think that's their attitude as well? You are as bad as they are.
Acting in response to a threat is now terrorism. I have never said to kill the innocent, if you stop me from killing my enemies you become one, your protecting them, dont do that.
The course the jihadist takes is well known to each of them that decide to die in order to promote thier radical ways, the way to stop them is to grant them the do course of thier choice and kill them. I have always said that if they stop acting out in Jihad, and denounce it then I'd not make them my enemy. Thats not a radical ideology, thats called being just.
Acting against international treaties to which you are signatories is terrorism when it involves attacking other nations.
If I might quote from the post you are replying to :-
Originally Posted by Jester
When it comes to the protection of my poeple I will absolutely ignore everyone who gets in my way. Or kill them if they stand too close in.
If this is not a direct statement that you would kill anyone who happens to be in your way, innocent or not, then I don't know what is.
So they have to submit before you'll talk to them - don't you think that's their attitude as well? You are as bad as they are.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;832239 wrote: That means 'get involved in stopping me'.
By being in the wrong place at the wrong time - no excuse for killing them.
By being in the wrong place at the wrong time - no excuse for killing them.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;832376 wrote: Your reading into what Im writing things that are not there...
Im saying if you try to stop me from killing my enemies you become one, that is not to say I will target innocent people along the way simply because they are in my way.
There is a difference.
But lets stop the ti-for-tat eh.
I'll spell it out directly. The Jihadist is my enemy by their sworn oath and actions. I will do all I can to avoid the innocent along the way, sometimes it just cant be helped, even though one tries ones best to not fire in civilian areas, when the jihadist hides there, the civilians would do wisely to move out... I think the US doeas 1000% better to not kill civilains in the process compared to the jihadist.
But, I am certain you will dispute that as well.
Would you care to tell me how you get anything other than "I'll kill anyone who gets in my way" from "I will absolutely ignore everyone who gets in my way. Or kill them if they stand too close in.".
And would you also tell me how "Bryn, I dont give a rats a** what they think anymore. We're too far past it to matter. I don't want to negotiate and I woudlnt even if they begged until I was sure they couldn't make war in any way, shape or form. Then, and only then they can surrender unconditionally and we can really get to work rebuilding and helping them.
What choice do they have? They can stand down or be killed, it is still they're choice. And its going to get far worse before it gets better. I'm sick of apologizing and I wont do it anymore. I'm sick of saying I'm sorry for being American and protecting my people and my way of life.
Tough crud bud."
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=41
Is any less fanatic than them?
Im saying if you try to stop me from killing my enemies you become one, that is not to say I will target innocent people along the way simply because they are in my way.
There is a difference.
But lets stop the ti-for-tat eh.
I'll spell it out directly. The Jihadist is my enemy by their sworn oath and actions. I will do all I can to avoid the innocent along the way, sometimes it just cant be helped, even though one tries ones best to not fire in civilian areas, when the jihadist hides there, the civilians would do wisely to move out... I think the US doeas 1000% better to not kill civilains in the process compared to the jihadist.
But, I am certain you will dispute that as well.
Would you care to tell me how you get anything other than "I'll kill anyone who gets in my way" from "I will absolutely ignore everyone who gets in my way. Or kill them if they stand too close in.".
And would you also tell me how "Bryn, I dont give a rats a** what they think anymore. We're too far past it to matter. I don't want to negotiate and I woudlnt even if they begged until I was sure they couldn't make war in any way, shape or form. Then, and only then they can surrender unconditionally and we can really get to work rebuilding and helping them.
What choice do they have? They can stand down or be killed, it is still they're choice. And its going to get far worse before it gets better. I'm sick of apologizing and I wont do it anymore. I'm sick of saying I'm sorry for being American and protecting my people and my way of life.
Tough crud bud."
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=41
Is any less fanatic than them?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Military build-up nears completion
I haven't read this thread. Not sure how I dropped in on this particular post, but I did.
Jester;830222 wrote: [...], you think that if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and it wont work that way, too late, even to try it.[...]
Y'know, I'd give a dollar to give it a shot anyway. Let's do it and see what happens.
Jester;830222 wrote: [...], you think that if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and it wont work that way, too late, even to try it.[...]
Y'know, I'd give a dollar to give it a shot anyway. Let's do it and see what happens.
Military build-up nears completion
Two people stand in the middle of the street slugging it out, each blaming the other for refusing to back down - whose fault is it?
I guess unless youve seen what fantatical muslums do to thier enemies close up
Have you seen what the Coalition do to the Muslims - they kill them. Have you counted numbers recently? The coalition are winning in the killing stakes by a thousand to one - and that doesn't include innocent bystanders.
Yes, Jester, I fully intend to wear you down because you are wrong, dangerously so, and the only way to end this killing is to change the attitude of you and people like you.
I guess unless youve seen what fantatical muslums do to thier enemies close up
Have you seen what the Coalition do to the Muslims - they kill them. Have you counted numbers recently? The coalition are winning in the killing stakes by a thousand to one - and that doesn't include innocent bystanders.
Yes, Jester, I fully intend to wear you down because you are wrong, dangerously so, and the only way to end this killing is to change the attitude of you and people like you.
Military build-up nears completion
I can't tell the difference between what Jester writes and what Bin Laden is quoted as saying. I really can't.
I asked Jester to not pshaw away the serious allegations against his own government and all I got were laughing smilies. Fact: Many Americans believe their own government is complicit in the WTC event. There happens to be more proof of that allegation than any allegations against Iran. The terrorists are in your own house.
The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq despite neither country making a first strike or having the ability to harm the US. No one in their right mind can think that another unjust war is sane. Bush lost interest in where Bin Laden was shortly after the war planes left US soil.
the tail has wagged the dog and sadly, Jester, you are the dog.
I asked Jester to not pshaw away the serious allegations against his own government and all I got were laughing smilies. Fact: Many Americans believe their own government is complicit in the WTC event. There happens to be more proof of that allegation than any allegations against Iran. The terrorists are in your own house.
The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq despite neither country making a first strike or having the ability to harm the US. No one in their right mind can think that another unjust war is sane. Bush lost interest in where Bin Laden was shortly after the war planes left US soil.
the tail has wagged the dog and sadly, Jester, you are the dog.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;832535 wrote: Will you give the life of your wife and the rest of her family for the chance to sit back and wait for it?
Well, yeah, of course. We'll be saturated with troops pulled in from all over the world, so I think we'll be safe.
Well, yeah, of course. We'll be saturated with troops pulled in from all over the world, so I think we'll be safe.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Military build-up nears completion
Hope this post actually works (having connection problems).
Just to point out that Jester has a point about fundamentalists/fanatics. They are not people who are reasonable. Their god has told them they are right and justified in what they do and no mere human agency can change that. We've got our Jester here - there are a few million "Jesters" as certain as he is that they are right pointing guns and bombs in our direction and saying innocent bystanders are irrelevant or that there are no "innocent" bystanders.
We probably created a lot of them ourselves, by the abysmal handling of the original invasion/liberation (and earlier events), but the fact remains they are there and they want to kill. God told them it's right to do so through their Imams.
Jihadagogo.
Just to point out that Jester has a point about fundamentalists/fanatics. They are not people who are reasonable. Their god has told them they are right and justified in what they do and no mere human agency can change that. We've got our Jester here - there are a few million "Jesters" as certain as he is that they are right pointing guns and bombs in our direction and saying innocent bystanders are irrelevant or that there are no "innocent" bystanders.
We probably created a lot of them ourselves, by the abysmal handling of the original invasion/liberation (and earlier events), but the fact remains they are there and they want to kill. God told them it's right to do so through their Imams.
Jihadagogo.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;832535 wrote: Will you give the life of your wife and the rest of her family for the chance to sit back and wait for it?
Just as a reminder, lives of my family are at risk now, as well.
Just as a reminder, lives of my family are at risk now, as well.
Military build-up nears completion
Jester;832775 wrote: Well Bryn, koan you guys win, Im done, youve worn me down, Im tired of trying to remind anyone here of how serious this action is against us, it falls on deaf ears, you want NO killing and thats totally unrealistic.
This is two subjects, that by virtue of totally wasting my time will not speak to here in the garden again.
Bryn Im glad you seem to think we are winning, but your view is seriously flawed. Koan, to compare me in any way to Ben Laden is an out and out total insult.
Acc, with much respect over time I say to you that I dont see at all where your coming from? It perplexes me.
For those of you at one time or another chose to see that Im right and said 'Yeah' to yourselves, bless you, few here though you may be.
No, Jester, I want negotiation and that's something you won't accept.
It's you that appears to think we're winning with the tactics we're using now - I've said all along that, without negotiation the problem will never be resolved.
This is two subjects, that by virtue of totally wasting my time will not speak to here in the garden again.
Bryn Im glad you seem to think we are winning, but your view is seriously flawed. Koan, to compare me in any way to Ben Laden is an out and out total insult.
Acc, with much respect over time I say to you that I dont see at all where your coming from? It perplexes me.
For those of you at one time or another chose to see that Im right and said 'Yeah' to yourselves, bless you, few here though you may be.
No, Jester, I want negotiation and that's something you won't accept.
It's you that appears to think we're winning with the tactics we're using now - I've said all along that, without negotiation the problem will never be resolved.