A last one, for the road
-
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.
-
Ah, the same old cliché, from someone who knows history like I know ballet dancing... pointless, childish and uninteresting.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall? Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
ballet dancing... pointless, childish and uninteresting.
You should have seen Baryshnikov in his prime - or Edward Vilella. FYI: the Germans took 1.8 million (!) French soldiers prisoner. Most armies of that size do not need to surrender. Indeed, they usually only need leadership and courage. When the Third Republic was abolished and the Petain regime instituted in its place, only 80 of the 600 members of Parliament voiced their opposition. What a fine example of French patriotism and courage! It is a common misconception that the Vichy regime administered only the unoccupied zone of southern France (named "free zone" (zone libre) by Vichy), while the Germans directly administered the occupied zone. In fact, the civil jurisdiction of the Vichy government extended over the whole of metropolitan France, except for Alsace-Lorraine. Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. The French police and the state Milice (militia) organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones. The armistice signed by the Germans and Petain's government specifically included the right for France to maintain an "army of the armistice," to defend against an attack by the allies, especially in the French colonies in North Africa. In the Mediterranean area alone, the Vichy French had nearly 150,000 men in arms. The first battle between Vichy France and the UK took place on the 5th of July, 1940, when the Brits sank the 4 battleships, 6 destroyers and a sea-plane tender of French navy that were defending Algeria. To be complete, I should mention that by the end of 1942, the French forces in North Africa were fighting with the Allies. The French soldiers fighting under the command of the Germans comprised of Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division. Apparently these were the best soldiers France fielded during WWII as they distinguished themselves both in Poland and in the defense of Berlin. Three of them received the Knight's Cross from Hitler and they were the last defenders of Hitler's Bunker.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
I think that now anybody will understand the reason why Iran wants to have nukes.
So the US will attack it with nukes? I think you are forgetting that your hero, Ahmadinejad, says he doesn't want nukes, just more electric power.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So the US will attack it with nukes? I think you are forgetting that your hero, Ahmadinejad, says he doesn't want nukes, just more electric power.
In that case why doesn't the US attack by dropping a huge electric fire in the Persian Gulf?
-
Everybody lies. For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
Le Centriste wrote:
For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
Everyone indeed. Even you...
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too.
Maybe. I didn't bother reading the rest of the thread.