A last one, for the road
-
Ka?l wrote:
anybody will understand the reason why Iran wants to have nukes.
Everyone already understands that they want nukes so they can destroy Israel without fear of retaliation by the US. Glad to see you've finally abandoned the fiction that they just want nuclear energy for electricity.
Everybody lies. For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
-
Ka?l wrote:
Looks like a western movie, the John Wayne's way, entitled to slaughter the bad Indians who dare to attack the gentle WASP.
That's about right. You would prefer the WASPs to throw down their guns and surrender to the tender mercies of the Indians? That only happened with the French settlers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Don't forget about the French surrendering to Germany in WWII as well.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
No, I don't think the US would hesitate. I do think Amanediejad and his superiors think (wrongly) that it would give the US pause if Iran had Nukes.
Rob Graham wrote:
Amanediejad and his superiors think (wrongly) that it would give the US pause if Iran had Nukes.
More like wishful thinking on their part.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
No, I don't think the US would hesitate. I do think Amanediejad and his superiors think (wrongly) that it would give the US pause if Iran had Nukes.
Rob Graham wrote:
I do think Amanediejad and his superiors think (wrongly) that it would give the US pause if Iran had Nukes.
Hard to believe. Merely having nukes doesn't translate into being able to deliver them to the US and if Iran were to actually use a nuke on Israel, then the US would feel compelled to attack Iran lest it use them on someone else in the region. For that matter, Britain or France (who are more readily in range) might feel compelled to attack Iran.
John Carson
-
Don't forget about the French surrendering to Germany in WWII as well.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Paul Conrad wrote:
Don't forget about the French surrendering to Germany in WWII as well.
The French government didn't surrender (though the armies did) - that's the fiction of "occupied France." The fact is that they became co-belligerents.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
No, the US is trying to be sure Israel has the military supremacy in the region.
well we are just good at picking the right people for friends. and this group in particular is one set of badasses.
Ka?l wrote:
Now that's for sure, you're drunk. Or living in a fairy tale with Peter Pan and Marry Poppins. Whatever, you should really, really, take your pills.
grow up.
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
jgasm wrote:
well we are just good at picking the right people for friends.
The same ones who stole the US nuclear materials to build their first nuclear bombs?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Rob Graham wrote:
they want nukes so they can destroy Israel without fear of retaliation by the US
Israel has over 200 nukes - What should they need the US to protect them?
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Ka?l wrote:
Israel has over 200 nukes - What should they need the US to protect them?
That's right. Iran needs someone to protect them from Israel and the US is around to protect Israel from Iran's protector. Do you understand how it works, now?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I do think Amanediejad and his superiors think (wrongly) that it would give the US pause if Iran had Nukes.
Hard to believe. Merely having nukes doesn't translate into being able to deliver them to the US and if Iran were to actually use a nuke on Israel, then the US would feel compelled to attack Iran lest it use them on someone else in the region. For that matter, Britain or France (who are more readily in range) might feel compelled to attack Iran.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Merely having nukes doesn't translate into being able to deliver them to the US and if Iran were to actually use a nuke on Israel, then the US would feel compelled to attack Iran lest it use them on someone else in the region. For that matter, Britain or France (who are more readily in range) might feel compelled to attack Iran.
You know that; we know that; even Israel knows that. Now why don't you convince Ahmadinejad?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
Looks like a western movie, the John Wayne's way, entitled to slaughter the bad Indians who dare to attack the gentle WASP.
That's about right. You would prefer the WASPs to throw down their guns and surrender to the tender mercies of the Indians? That only happened with the French settlers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Everybody lies. For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except that we are the good guys and they aren't. Basically, we own the moral high ground
And from your signature:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys
Curious
Johnny ² wrote:
Curious
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too. Edit To my 1 voters: Of all the posts I've made this morning, you found this offensive? ROTFL /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Don't forget about the French surrendering to Germany in WWII as well.
The French government didn't surrender (though the armies did) - that's the fiction of "occupied France." The fact is that they became co-belligerents.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I confirm, you know shit in History - The french generals refused the 'on-field capitulation' that could have freed the goverment in its choices - That's why the governement had to ask for an armistice (June, 17 1940). For the co-belligerance, there was none, Vichy regime did not declare war to UK, despite Mers el Kebir or Dakar.
Society is composed of two great classes, those that have more dinners than appetite, and those who have more appetite than dinners Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Ka?l wrote:
Israel has over 200 nukes - What should they need the US to protect them?
That's right. Iran needs someone to protect them from Israel and the US is around to protect Israel from Iran's protector. Do you understand how it works, now?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Iran needs someone to protect them from Israel and the US is around to protect Israel from Iran's protector.
Iran won't need protectors - nobody would want to protect them. They will have the bomb, one way or another. And once they will have some, this will be MAD again.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Johnny ² wrote:
Curious
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too. Edit To my 1 voters: Of all the posts I've made this morning, you found this offensive? ROTFL /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
-
jgasm wrote:
well we are just good at picking the right people for friends.
The same ones who stole the US nuclear materials to build their first nuclear bombs?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
The same ones who stole the US nuclear materials to build their first nuclear bombs?
thus demonstrating their badassness and definite candidacy for friendship :-D
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:15 PM
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Everyone already understands that they want nukes so they can destroy Israel without fear of retaliation by the US.
:confused: So you think that if Iran had nukes and destroyed Israel (using nukes?), the US wouldn't retaliate??!!
John Carson
If we didn't, it'd only be because Israel engaged in a targeted revenge and completely blotted Iran off the map, instead of the rumored plan of blasting every muslim state in range indiscriminately.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Ka?l wrote:
anybody will understand the reason why Iran wants to have nukes.
Everyone already understands that they want nukes so they can destroy Israel without fear of retaliation by the US. Glad to see you've finally abandoned the fiction that they just want nuclear energy for electricity.
Rob Graham wrote:
Everyone already understands that they want nukes so they can destroy Israel without fear of retaliation by the US. Glad to see you've finally abandoned the fiction that they just want nuclear energy for electricity
What makes you think Israel needs US protection? Israel has a very strong military. Though it's standing army is around 175,000, 30th in the world. In terms of effectiveness it can be ranked among the top 10 in the world. It also has a well developed nuclear capability. Israel has the capability to mobilise an army of around 3 million in times of need. For the sake of comparison, China has the worlds largest standing army which is 2.25 million , US has 1.4 million. If at all Iran wants to build nuclear arms, it may not be for attacking Israel. Israel doesn't come into the equation at all. It is a lot more complicated than that.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Everyone already understands that they want nukes so they can destroy Israel without fear of retaliation by the US. Glad to see you've finally abandoned the fiction that they just want nuclear energy for electricity
What makes you think Israel needs US protection? Israel has a very strong military. Though it's standing army is around 175,000, 30th in the world. In terms of effectiveness it can be ranked among the top 10 in the world. It also has a well developed nuclear capability. Israel has the capability to mobilise an army of around 3 million in times of need. For the sake of comparison, China has the worlds largest standing army which is 2.25 million , US has 1.4 million. If at all Iran wants to build nuclear arms, it may not be for attacking Israel. Israel doesn't come into the equation at all. It is a lot more complicated than that.
Read my post. I never said that I think Israel needs anything. I commented on what I thought prompts Iran to want Nuclear weapons. My opintion is based largely on Iran's own public statements vis-a-vis Israel. If you don't think Israel "comes in to the equation at all", then you are a damn fool who pays no attention to what the leaders of the nations in quesation say or do.
-
John Carson wrote:
Merely having nukes doesn't translate into being able to deliver them to the US and if Iran were to actually use a nuke on Israel, then the US would feel compelled to attack Iran lest it use them on someone else in the region. For that matter, Britain or France (who are more readily in range) might feel compelled to attack Iran.
You know that; we know that; even Israel knows that. Now why don't you convince Ahmadinejad?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Now why don't you convince Ahmadinejad?
Once again, this guy is just a puppet. Ali Khamenei is the sole leader of Iran.
When the pitcher falls upon the stone, woe unto the pitcher, when the stone falls upon the pitcher, woe unto the pitcher : whatever befalls, woe unto the pitcher
-
Johnny ² wrote:
Curious
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too. Edit To my 1 voters: Of all the posts I've made this morning, you found this offensive? ROTFL /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Oakman wrote:
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too.
I kind of thought killing people to keep the moral high ground would be rather blatant enough ... :laugh:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.