lol shifty, u mad.Cybargs wrote:
US should just cut down to a national guard level of military and leave it to Europe to clean up the power vacuum. You guys can go fuck yourselves.
At least I didn't say I'm an American when I'm not lel.The Sheriff wrote:
lol shifty, u mad.Cybargs wrote:
US should just cut down to a national guard level of military and leave it to Europe to clean up the power vacuum. You guys can go fuck yourselves.
Dibert:Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes, for example the USA provokes a country into a war over oil resources and then bombs the shit out of them.-Sh1fty- wrote:
AFAIK doesn't history nearly always repeat itself? I'm not saying the exact same people with the same problem, I'm talking about other countries possibly having similar situations and results.
Look up:
War in the Pacific
Gulf War I
Gulf War II
Do you know why the US refused to provide oil to Japan?
Like specifically what the oil was being used for?
My opinions:
The problem at the moment isn't Iran, it's its government. Achmadinejad is a radical that came to power because of a war that was raging in the neighbouring country. When threatened, people tend to elect radicals. Now that the situation's gotten better, not all of Iran's people like this radical solution anymore (see all that demonstrations). After the next election, (4 or 5 years I guess) there shouldn't be any problems anymore, because there won't be any radicals left in power.
This doesn' mean the world should just wait it out. I don't think Iran will attack anyone, because they know they will be transformed in a huge piece of glass (read that here somewhere, liked it) when they do. Yet, to make sure that people vote for the "right" candidates at the next election, political and financial relations should be kept small. Whenever Achmadinedjad threatens anyone again, take something from them. No military action though, people would just become more radical and you'll have another Iraq.
The difference between the US and Europe results probably from the connections to Israel. Israel is the only country really threatened by Iran (no real threat, see above). The US has always been Israel's big brother, so they complain when Israel does. Europe on the other hand would probably help Israel if they were attacked by Iran (physically), but don't feel they have to react yet, while it's all still talking. Financial things can't be the reason, both continents/countrys trade with that region of the world.
The problem at the moment isn't Iran, it's its government. Achmadinejad is a radical that came to power because of a war that was raging in the neighbouring country. When threatened, people tend to elect radicals. Now that the situation's gotten better, not all of Iran's people like this radical solution anymore (see all that demonstrations). After the next election, (4 or 5 years I guess) there shouldn't be any problems anymore, because there won't be any radicals left in power.
This doesn' mean the world should just wait it out. I don't think Iran will attack anyone, because they know they will be transformed in a huge piece of glass (read that here somewhere, liked it) when they do. Yet, to make sure that people vote for the "right" candidates at the next election, political and financial relations should be kept small. Whenever Achmadinedjad threatens anyone again, take something from them. No military action though, people would just become more radical and you'll have another Iraq.
The difference between the US and Europe results probably from the connections to Israel. Israel is the only country really threatened by Iran (no real threat, see above). The US has always been Israel's big brother, so they complain when Israel does. Europe on the other hand would probably help Israel if they were attacked by Iran (physically), but don't feel they have to react yet, while it's all still talking. Financial things can't be the reason, both continents/countrys trade with that region of the world.
you're a fucking retard-Sh1fty- wrote:
Spark, he's a fucking liberal douche. You can't fucking debate with people like that, their ideas are so full of shit you can't change their minds.
Ironically...
I'm the opposite, I'm a conservative and I'm a stubborn jackass if you don't agree with me. At least I'm willing to learn.
He's probably the kind of guy who doesn't give a shit about the military, thinks the officers are all retards and the enlisted men are poor Mexicans and black people being used as cannon fodder while slaughtering innocent civilians 24/7 for oil.
also lol @ the insinuations that Europe wouldn't do anything if Iran threatened us... you all forget WWII? We still have some of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, with intelligent people at the wheels, and public support would be 100% to glass them.
Oh wait, we're all liberal pansy fucks, that's the angle you were taking. n1.
and dilbert stop sperging your US hate into every thread you enter, shits getting old.
Last edited by FatherTed (2010-04-22 13:31:11)
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
just not change your mind?-Sh1fty- wrote:
At least I'm willing to learn.
cos that would be waaaaay off the mark lel-Sh1fty- wrote:
He's probably the kind of guy who doesn't give a shit about the military, thinks the officers are all retards and the enlisted men are poor Mexicans and black people being used as cannon fodder while slaughtering innocent civilians 24/7 for oil.
Yeah, over here all we do is train friendly combatants, then send them on their merry way with U.S. made ready-to-use weapons, so that they can kill more Soviet men and women. Or overthrow democratically elected governments. Don't be high and mighty. If you want to spew PNAC rhetoric, at least be up front about it.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Then you've got Iran [url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/22/iran-begins-war-games-strait-hormuz/]They are literally training enemy combatants, then sending them on their merry way with Iran-made ready-to-use IEDs so they can kill more NATO men and women.
Problem is you know nothing, you think the US should just bomb the hell out of whoever they want.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Spark, he's a fucking liberal douche. You can't fucking debate with people like that, their ideas are so full of shit you can't change their minds.
Ironically...
I'm the opposite, I'm a conservative and I'm a stubborn jackass if you don't agree with me. At least I'm willing to learn.
eg
You're not 'conservative' by any stretch, and there's not much point in being stubborn if your head is empty.What would military precision bombing of training camps and the nuclear plants entail? All out war in the Middle East?
Fuck Israel
Nothing. Israel is capable.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dilbert, you're coming off like an idiot, even I know the Saudi's hate Iran.Spark wrote:
proxy wars. seriously, read up about it - they really do not like each other. One is Wahabi Sunni, one is Shiite. Polar opposites.Dilbert_X wrote:
And what aggressive acts have they committed against each other so far?Spark wrote:
no, i don't think you understand.
the saudis despise the iranians. the feeling is mutual.
Is it none?
Oh and WWII was not motivated by oil, you sound like a 1960s Japanese Textbook author. The US just placed sanctions BECAUSE of the invasion of Manchuria, and the fact that they did not want to get involved.
Most of the GCC countries despise the Iranians. That's why the GCC is pressing so hard for the West to intervene on the Iranian nuke issue...or to stand back and let the GCC countries do their own thing WRT nukes to counter Iran. That's one of the biggest reasons why we don't want Iran to get nukes--because we don't want a nuclear arms race in the ME.Spark wrote:
no, i don't think you understand.Dilbert_X wrote:
More likely they'd send President Ahmadonorkebab a case of beer.
Not that Saudis or Iranians drink like fishes or anything...
the saudis despise the iranians. the feeling is mutual.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Am I the only one who picked up that the OP is citing a general wikipedia article on nuclear weapons as a source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, as opposed to - you know - an actual relevent source?
Last edited by Pubic (2010-04-23 14:56:45)
and a fox news blog.Pubic wrote:
Am I the only one who picked up that the OP is citing a general wikipedia article on nuclear weapons as a source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, as opposed to - you know - an actual relevent source?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Which Could possibly means something.Spark wrote:
and a fox news blog.Pubic wrote:
Am I the only one who picked up that the OP is citing a general wikipedia article on nuclear weapons as a source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, as opposed to - you know - an actual relevent source?
Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile
"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015."
With "sufficient foreign assistance" any country could have a missile.
It's a blog written by a "journalist" at Fox News. Oh please. Get a grip.
With "sufficient foreign assistance" any country could have a missile.
It's a blog written by a "journalist" at Fox News. Oh please. Get a grip.
China could just give 'em one right?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
no, you retard. they're not christmas presents. government intelligence networks have a pretty tight grip on these things.
also i love how your main argument against iran is that they're supplying IED's to combatants in iraq. hel-lo, the usa has been providing arms and training to rebel insurgencies all over the world for most of the 20th and 21st centuries. does that make you guys global terrorists and threats to world peace, too?
also i love how your main argument against iran is that they're supplying IED's to combatants in iraq. hel-lo, the usa has been providing arms and training to rebel insurgencies all over the world for most of the 20th and 21st centuries. does that make you guys global terrorists and threats to world peace, too?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
shifty aint americanUzique wrote:
no, you retard. they're not christmas presents. government intelligence networks have a pretty tight grip on these things.
also i love how your main argument against iran is that they're supplying IED's to combatants in iraq. hel-lo, the usa has been providing arms and training to rebel insurgencies all over the world for most of the 20th and 21st centuries. does that make you guys global terrorists and threats to world peace, too?
Jeez, the US went to war on less the last time.Spark wrote:
and a fox news blog.Pubic wrote:
Am I the only one who picked up that the OP is citing a general wikipedia article on nuclear weapons as a source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, as opposed to - you know - an actual relevent source?
Fuck Israel
well it's the closest thing he has to any military affiliation, because the swiss havent done fuck-all except make cheese, watches and poofters for the last 100 years.11 Bravo wrote:
shifty aint americanUzique wrote:
no, you retard. they're not christmas presents. government intelligence networks have a pretty tight grip on these things.
also i love how your main argument against iran is that they're supplying IED's to combatants in iraq. hel-lo, the usa has been providing arms and training to rebel insurgencies all over the world for most of the 20th and 21st centuries. does that make you guys global terrorists and threats to world peace, too?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The search for chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction isn't over.Dilbert_X wrote:
Jeez, the US went to war on less the last time.Spark wrote:
and a fox news blog.Pubic wrote:
Am I the only one who picked up that the OP is citing a general wikipedia article on nuclear weapons as a source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, as opposed to - you know - an actual relevent source?
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absense...
omg you are so funny dood
and he used two different 'absences' in one post
what a dork!
what a dork!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
quick, someone find the dislike button
That could just as easily read "Iran could probably develop their first World Series Test Cricket Team".DrunkFace wrote:
Which Could possibly means something.Spark wrote:
and a fox news blog.Pubic wrote:
Am I the only one who picked up that the OP is citing a general wikipedia article on nuclear weapons as a source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme, as opposed to - you know - an actual relevent source?Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile