No win situation

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 19, 2003, 9:27 am

Just reading through the news this morning and finally read through the Bush warns Iran story that I had been procrastinating on. It's a no win situation. We will never be at real peace with the middle east if we are constantly threatening, bullying, and shaking our fists at them. That breeds a natural hate towards us. On the other hand, we can't be ok with letting everyone have nuclear weapons. I just don't see a peaceful solution that can come of all this. It just seems that lately, everything that we could possibly do to distance ourselves from a peaceful co-existance with the middle east has been happening.

Your thoughts on the Iran comments?

-edit And if we try to block Iran from building nuclear facilities for power, does anyone remember what happened the last time we cock blocked a country from a resource?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 19, 2003, 9:48 am

Predictable, I call it.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 19, 2003, 10:39 am

It's like plugging fingers into leaks that keep popping up on a dike. You're bound to run out of fingers and you are better off getting the fuck out of there while you still can rather than stand there like a dumbfuck until the very end when it collapses and takes you with it.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 19, 2003, 10:53 am

This part of the world has been at war since the beginnings of recorded history. It's arrogant to think we can somehow stop it now. Especially with the tactics that are being used.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 19, 2003, 10:58 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:This part of the world has been at war since the beginnings of recorded history. It's arrogant to think we can somehow stop it now. Especially with the tactics that are being used.

I guess my question is Do they want to stop it.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » June 19, 2003, 11:15 am

I believe the overall strategy is to use our invasion on Iraq as a warning to other countries. The US has basicly said, "If you do not head the warnings against you, then we have proven we can/will invade." I'm sure the overall hope is that the countries will work out their problems with minimal US involvement.

I also do not see the US doing anything without UN support this time. I don't think the populus will "back" it as much as the majority here did for the Iraq thing.

It is also as Fair said, we cannot truly expect the middle east to be at peace. There economies just don't allow for it. When you have such spread out communities, poor people, and only one true wealthy class/belief in control, you will always have uprisings and rebel groups. This is the main reason why the US has state over church...I think.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 19, 2003, 11:36 am

Kluden wrote:I believe the overall strategy is to use our invasion on Iraq as a warning to other countries. The US has basicly said, "If you do not head the warnings against you, then we have proven we can/will invade." I'm sure the overall hope is that the countries will work out their problems with minimal US involvement.

This has created a NEED for a nuclear deterent. Both Iran and North Korea would be retarded not to put this deterent in place now.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 19, 2003, 11:39 am

I guess my question is Do they want to stop it.

Fuck no. They hate each other. They define themselves by the differences between the other religions/cultures in the region. They will not stop until the other is eradicated. This view is engrained into the psyche and has been passed down for generations.

One thing is for certian, the US cannot help that sort of situation with force or the threat of violence. These people raise their kids in warzones. It's like trying to threaten a fish with drowning it in water.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » June 19, 2003, 12:26 pm

Forthe wrote:
Kluden wrote:I believe the overall strategy is to use our invasion on Iraq as a warning to other countries. The US has basicly said, "If you do not head the warnings against you, then we have proven we can/will invade." I'm sure the overall hope is that the countries will work out their problems with minimal US involvement.
This has created a NEED for a nuclear deterent. Both Iran and North Korea would be retarded not to put this deterent in place now.

Exactly. You are completely correct. We have not made the world a safer place by conquering Iraq. Anything Saddam was likely to have done if left in power pales in comparison to the danger from the impetus we've given other rogue nations to arm themselves with nukes.

Fairweather Pure wrote:It's like trying to threaten a fish with drowning it in water.

Fish can drown in water. Try putting a salt water fish in un-aeriated tank, hehe.

Mippy

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 19, 2003, 12:34 pm

This has created a NEED for a nuclear deterent. Both Iran and North Korea would be retarded not to put this deterent in place now.

Forthe hit the nail on the head. I assure you that whatever nuclear program Iran and North Korea had, it was immedaitely given prioriety, funding, and put on the fast lane of production due to how the US handeled the situation in Iraq. It is the only route those countries have in order to defend themselves from the US and our accusations.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » June 19, 2003, 1:47 pm

I read this last night on msn. I must say that this is a huge mistake if we go to war with them. But what does Bush care. He as a re-election to plan for.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » June 19, 2003, 6:18 pm

Not to be nitpicky, but any country that believes they can defend themselves by developing a nuclear weapon, ten thousand nuclear weapons for that matter has their head so far up their ass they couldn't reach out to do the math.

Seriously, nukes stopped being a deterrent to the global community a long time ago.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » June 19, 2003, 6:35 pm

First I'd like to point out that up until one hundred years ago, Europe was mostly in a constant state of war since the beginning of recorded history as well. Yet these states have stopped so who is to say that the same is not true of the Middle East. Oh I'm not saying it's going to happen over night or even that it's going to happen, but I am tired of everyone using the "they been fighting forever" reasoning.

Second nukes are a deterrent, sure we can blow up the world a few times over with our nukes, but no one wins in a nuke war. The only way the U.S. would use a nuke is if one is used on us and by then it's already too late really. Nukes force the U.S. to approach the situation from a more diplomatic angle and we all know how good the current administration's diplomatic skills are.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 19, 2003, 6:48 pm

I agree with Forthe and Kelgar.

They'd be stupid not to develop them, the US has no business telling another country how to spend it's military budget. Furthermore, it's like the RIAA trying to stop pirating of music. The technology exists, it will be widespread.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » June 19, 2003, 6:51 pm

Yes, we pretty much dont want countries getting nukes because then we would have to negotiate, you know, like N Korea. With no nukes, we can shake fists, pull hair, and stomp really hard.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 19, 2003, 8:06 pm

Not to be nitpicky, but any country that believes they can defend themselves by developing a nuclear weapon, ten thousand nuclear weapons for that matter has their head so far up their ass they couldn't reach out to do the math.

Seriously, nukes stopped being a deterrent to the global community a long time ago.

You are wrong.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » June 19, 2003, 8:15 pm

Exactly the reason why you guys (U.S. love you all) piss me off so much. Leading by example is probably the only thing in the long run there is any chance of people agreeing with. This fucking destitute pile of horse shit called Bush foreign policy is so absolutely the antithesis to this I find it hard to believe history's lessons have been learned by these _fucking idiots_.

Fairweather Pure wrote:
This part of the world has been at war since the beginnings of recorded history. It's arrogant to think we can somehow stop it now. Especially with the tactics that are being used.

Probably the most un-educated, ignorant and naieve statement I've read this week. If you had any idea about history you'd probably know we Europeans take that prize. In fact us white-boys have been fucking the world and everyone in it for 1500 years (2k if you count the Romans). Mesopotamia/Assyria was relatively peaceful thx d00d.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 19, 2003, 8:33 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Not to be nitpicky, but any country that believes they can defend themselves by developing a nuclear weapon, ten thousand nuclear weapons for that matter has their head so far up their ass they couldn't reach out to do the math.

Seriously, nukes stopped being a deterrent to the global community a long time ago.

This is excellent. I have been mining for moron all day and just hit the motherload!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 19, 2003, 8:33 pm

Salis wrote:Exactly the reason why you guys (U.S. love you all) piss me off so much. Leading by example is probably the only thing in the long run there is any chance of people agreeing with. This fucking destitute pile of horse shit called Bush foreign policy is so absolutely the antithesis to this I find it hard to believe history's lessons have been learned by these _fucking idiots_.

Fairweather Pure wrote:
This part of the world has been at war since the beginnings of recorded history. It's arrogant to think we can somehow stop it now. Especially with the tactics that are being used.
Probably the most un-educated, ignorant and naieve statement I've read this week. If you had any idea about history you'd probably know we Europeans take that prize. In fact us white-boys have been fucking the world and everyone in it for 1500 years (2k if you count the Romans). Mesopotamia/Assyria was relatively peaceful thx d00d.

Oh and you Scots have done a whole shitload for the world, Do us all a favor stay on your Island and do what you do best and fuck sheep.

noel · Post by **noel** » June 19, 2003, 8:36 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Not to be nitpicky, but any country that believes they can defend themselves by developing a nuclear weapon, ten thousand nuclear weapons for that matter has their head so far up their ass they couldn't reach out to do the math.

Seriously, nukes stopped being a deterrent to the global community a long time ago.
You are wrong.

Yep I agree with Fairweather. What sane government would want to risk nuclear war on any scale?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 19, 2003, 8:42 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
Not to be nitpicky, but any country that believes they can defend themselves by developing a nuclear weapon, ten thousand nuclear weapons for that matter has their head so far up their ass they couldn't reach out to do the math.

Seriously, nukes stopped being a deterrent to the global community a long time ago.
You are wrong.
Yep I agree with Fairweather. What sane government would want to risk nuclear war on any scale?

That is the problem Aranuil not all countrys that are developing the bomb are sane. Now I do agree with you what right do we have to tell them they cant develope a A-Bomb. But we do have the right to make sure they dont point it at us.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 19, 2003, 9:10 pm

Probably the most un-educated, ignorant and naieve statement I've read this week.

You overreact.

Things have changed in Europe, while the Middle East has made little to no progress in recent history.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » June 19, 2003, 9:15 pm

Because of what?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 19, 2003, 9:21 pm

Education, technology, and world economic/politcal dependancy? Just a guess though...

If you expect me to write a fucking essay explaining how and why Europe has changed for the better over the past 50 years, while the Middle East has not, you can fuck off.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » June 19, 2003, 9:24 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Education, technology, and world economic/politcal dependancy? Just a guess though...

If you expect me to write a fucking essay explaining how and why Europe has changed for the better over the past 50 years, while the Middle East has not, you can fuck off.

Exactly the ignorance and the naievty that has caused the Western world to gain such power at the expense of the rest of the world. I stand by my original statement.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 19, 2003, 9:30 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Education, technology, and world economic/politcal dependancy? Just a guess though...

If you expect me to write a fucking essay explaining how and why Europe has changed for the better over the past 50 years, while the Middle East has not, you can fuck off.

well europe has been able to succeed partly because of their involvement and oppression and general fucking up the middle east since the industrial revolution. most middle eastern countries and other things that divide arabs didn't even exist until europe created them.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » June 19, 2003, 10:35 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:Education, technology, and world economic/politcal dependancy? Just a guess though...

If you expect me to write a fucking essay explaining how and why Europe has changed for the better over the past 50 years, while the Middle East has not, you can fuck off.
well europe has been able to succeed partly because of their involvement and oppression and general fucking up the middle east since the industrial revolution. most middle eastern countries and other things that divide arabs didn't even exist until europe created them.

Exactly. The axis lossed WWI. Part of the axis was the Turkish-Ottoman Empire. This falls to the allies (Britain and France) as part of the spoils of war, who then divided up the territories into new countries, with absolutely no thought or input from the tribes, nor any kind of thought that most of the people consider themselves part of the nation of Islam more than anything else, and long for a reliegious leader , or "caliphate" (what Osama Bin Laden has shown aspirations be) . The way of thinking in that part of the world is TOTALLY different, and Bush has his head so far up his ass to think that we are "liberating" Iraq, and a western brand of democracy will now flurish there. It's fucking unreal. What is even more unreal, is that the population of the USA bye and large has bought it hook, line and sinker.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » June 20, 2003, 12:14 am

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » June 20, 2003, 12:32 am

OK I've been really busy this summer beak and have had just enough time to check drudge and my email and that's about it, but I decided to come over and check out VV (I know you all have missed my wise comments) and found the predictable America blaming.

Forthe wrote:This has created a NEED for a nuclear deterent. Both Iran and North Korea would be retarded not to put this deterent in place now.

This makes no sense whatsoever. The whole reason why we were ABLE to invade Iraq was because of their non compliance. Note: I'm not trying to argue that was our only motive, I'm only saying that if Saddam had fully complied it would have been near impossible for us to have been able to.

If Iran develops nukes they now KNOW that we will NOT sit around and let IAEA faggots drive around in circles in their white jeeps all over Iran while the Iranian government (it's a democracy right?) passes some bullshit law outlawing WMDs. Of course, with the tremendous reforms Iran is having, I wouldn't be surprised if they're way ahead of me and have already passed legislation banning the production of WMDs.

I really don't think Kim Jong Ill was saying "I don't want these nukes, I just want to be left alone" while he was secretly developing them over several years then when we invaded Iraq he was suddenly like "I had planned on apologizing to the US and doing away with the nuke program but now that they've invaded Iraq fuck them they could invade N Korea any second!!" Give me a break man. That rhetoric coming out of N Korea is purely and simply PLAYING people like you who want to blame America for something, anything, while making excuses for dictators.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » June 20, 2003, 12:47 am

Fallanthas wrote:Not to be nitpicky, but any country that believes they can defend themselves by developing a nuclear weapon, ten thousand nuclear weapons for that matter has their head so far up their ass they couldn't reach out to do the math.

Seriously, nukes stopped being a deterrent to the global community a long time ago.

WTF no.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » June 20, 2003, 1:54 am

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 20, 2003, 2:11 am

I really don't think ....

You'd be doing the whole world a favor if you simply kept it at this since it quite obviously isn't one of your stronger points.

The Arab community isn't going to sit idly by while the US occupies Iraq and starts swinging it's dick at the neighboring countries all the while piling on demands. The US is already treading on thin ice as is. No WMDs have turned up nor does the outlook for eventually finding them seem promising. Iraqis have zero say on how they are to govern themselves.

But lookee what we've got coming! Bush pushing all the buttons he can in order to start another conflict so that he may divert short attention spanned people such as yourself from these little facts. Iran will do whatever the fuck they'll want to do regarding developing their own weapons and the US would best not intervene via military action. To move against another Arab country so soon after the Iraq invasion (which is only pulling the US of A's image further and further down the shitter the longer WMDs don't turn up) would be to invite a series of 9/11's on a scale to make your head fucking spin.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » June 20, 2003, 2:59 am

Kelgar wrote:The Arab community isn't going to sit idly by while the US occupies Iraq and starts swinging it's dick at the neighboring countries all the while piling on demands.

Piling on demands? What do you think we're asking, for Iran to give up all their oil or else? The way you're talking you'd think asking a country to adhere to their nuclear treaty obligations is equivalent to that.

Kelgar wrote:The US is already treading on thin ice as is. No WMDs have turned up nor does the outlook for eventually finding them seem promising.

As far as Iran is concerned I don't give a shit if it turns out that the whole intelligence from the CIA was fabricated, Rumsfeld just wanted to bomb the crap out of someone, and Bush just wanted to help his oil buddies- we need to take a tough stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions regardless.

I sure hope we find the WMDs in Iraq though, or else we'll have to sit by and let Iran get nukes. God I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

Kelgar wrote:To move against another Arab country so soon after the Iraq invasion (which is only pulling the US of A's image further and further down the shitter the longer WMDs don't turn up) would be to invite a series of 9/11's on a scale to make your head fucking spin.

First off, I don't think this will ever come to war (oops I said I don't think, now you can post that again, not address anything I said, then yell out "PWNED!").

Second off, Iran getting nukes is not an option imo- it's fine if you disagree with that. However, if you don't think it's ok then these "wave of terrorists attacks" (like when we invaded Iraq huh?) should not at all factor into your thinking on the subject.

I see you criticizing several things but not facing the actual issue. Do you think it's ok for Iran to have nukes? Should we just accept the fact that they're not adhering to their nuclear treaty obligations?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 20, 2003, 3:55 am

there is not a single nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed so far that the US has not broken. what is your point?

I would love to see Iran stockpile nukes. get your fucking chickenhawk president and his greedy, spineless cronies the fuck out of that region double-quick wouldn't it?

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » June 20, 2003, 4:13 am

there is not a single nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed so far that the US has not broken

Im not up to date. What non-proliferation treaty did we sign, and have broken. I hate reading every thing thats written for rules in the world, since everyone that signs it breaks it.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 20, 2003, 7:13 am

Brotha wrote:OK I've been really busy this summer beak and have had just enough time to check drudge and my email and that's about it, but I decided to come over and check out VV (I know you all have missed my wise comments) and found the predictable America blaming.

Forthe wrote:This has created a NEED for a nuclear deterent. Both Iran and North Korea would be retarded not to put this deterent in place now.

I simply stated an opinion on the current situation. I wasn't pissing on your flag.

Brotha wrote:This makes no sense whatsoever. The whole reason why we were ABLE to invade Iraq was because of their non compliance. Note: I'm not trying to argue that was our only motive, I'm only saying that if Saddam had fully complied it would have been near impossible for us to have been able to.

And if in fact Iraq DID destroy their weapons as they claimed how could it have complied? The US kept escalating their demands until finally it wanted proof of non-existence, a test predestined to fail.

I believe it very probable that Iraq could not ever have "fully complied".

Brotha wrote:If Iran develops nukes they now KNOW that we will NOT sit around and let IAEA faggots drive around in circles in their white jeeps all over Iran while the Iranian government (it's a democracy right?) passes some bullshit law outlawing WMDs. Of course, with the tremendous reforms Iran is having, I wouldn't be surprised if they're way ahead of me and have already passed legislation banning the production of WMDs.

IAEA faggots?

You coming accross condenscending towards a bunch of nuclear scientists is very funny.

What basis do you have for that argument? When has the US ever attacked a nuclear nation?

Brotha wrote:I really don't think Kim Jong Ill was saying "I don't want these nukes, I just want to be left alone" while he was secretly developing them over several years then when we invaded Iraq he was suddenly like "I had planned on apologizing to the US and doing away with the nuke program but now that they've invaded Iraq fuck them they could invade N Korea any second!!" Give me a break man. That rhetoric coming out of N Korea is purely and simply PLAYING people like you who want to blame America for something, anything, while making excuses for dictators.

What gives the US any right to interfere with Iran or North Korea in the first place?

From my point of view those nations are no more likely to use them than the US. The development of "tactical nukes" and invading other countries with no supporting proof enforces this view.

I don't understand why the US won't sign a non-aggression treaty with North Korea. What is the big deal if you don't plan on invading them anyway?

PS. You really are a simpleton.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 20, 2003, 4:03 pm

Piling on demands? What do you think we're asking, for Iran to give up all their oil or else? The way you're talking you'd think asking a country to adhere to their nuclear treaty obligations is equivalent to that.

Reading Comprehension 101: Arab community. IE Syria being threatened for possibly harboring former Iraqi officials of Saddam's regime for starters. Now recently this "warning" to Iran. BTW, your little Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a document drafted in oh.....1968. Guess what? The leader(s) of Iran's current regime don't exactly have any obligations because they overthrew that guy who signed that document.

As far as Iran is concerned I don't give a shit if it turns out that the whole intelligence from the CIA was fabricated, Rumsfeld just wanted to bomb the crap out of someone, and Bush just wanted to help his oil buddies- we need to take a tough stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions regardless.

The Bushies love people like you. Unfortunately, there's one of you born every second. It seems that stupid people seem to have a knack for breeding. You've moreorless just openly admitted that you eat any shit spoonfed to you by your current government. Can I get a "baaaah, baaaaah"?

Second off, Iran getting nukes is not an option imo- it's fine if you disagree with that. However, if you don't think it's ok then these "wave of terrorists attacks" (like when we invaded Iraq huh?) should not at all factor into your thinking on the subject.

Are you spouting the same ol "no increased acts of terrorism yet" spiel again? Need everyone remind you yet again how pathetically short term your reasoning is? Terrorist attacks like the initial WTC bombing + 9/11 took months of preparations/planning.

The matter of Iran trying to obtain nukes is irelevant to the point I made earlier. Technology only knows one direction and will no doubt eventually find its way into the hands of some nation that the US has pissed off sometime in the past. US foreign policy would be better served via mending relations rather than continuing to cockblock.

Do you think it's ok for Iran to have nukes? Should we just accept the fact that they're not adhering to their nuclear treaty obligations?

1. From a protecting my ass POV, of course not. If 2 kids were fighting not too long ago and you gave one kid a baseball bat, but at the current time the kid with the baseball bat is gone or dead, would you risk letting that other kid get a hold of a pistol?

From an " I can't watch you and the 1647572358 other people I've pissed off for 24/7" POV, I'd swallow my pride and kiss some serious ass. It only seems to make sense that the best way to avoid possible nuclear attacks would be to minimize or reduce the number of enemies you have.

2. I've already addressed.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » June 20, 2003, 6:48 pm

Forthe wrote:And if in fact Iraq DID destroy their weapons as they claimed how could it have complied? The US kept escalating their demands until finally it wanted proof of non-existence, a test predestined to fail.

I believe it very probable that Iraq could not ever have "fully complied".

For many years (I'm talking about from post Gulf War- 1998) Saddam had a secret WMD program or at the very least was hiding WMDs from inspectors. During this time he could have destroyed them and saved himself a whole lot of grief, but he chose not to. That shows that Saddam placed a certain value on the WMDs. For one thing, thinking that after all that time of hiding them he'd suddenly decide to destroy them all unilaterally makes no sense. For another, if he had, wouldn't he have made a big deal about it and documented every bit of it? There's absolutely no logic behind thinking that he decided on his own to come clean after all that time.

Blix never claimed that Saddam was fully complying. He said "actively" one time, but he could never say fully complying. How many Iraqi scientists did we interview in Jordan? How long did it take for scientists to get interviewed alone and even then they were being bugged? Why were Iraqi scientists threatened? How do you explain Saddam's actions if he was clean?

Forthe wrote:From my point of view those nations are no more likely to use them than the US.

OK I'm glad to see you've given up the argument of "it's the US's fault that they want nukes", it shows that we're making some progress. Now you've gone back to the ole "If the US can have them why can't everyone else?" So you seriously don't see anything wrong with an Iran controlled by terrorist supporting religious extremist leaders who want the Jews destroyed and the Zionists gone getting nukes? Or Kim Jong Il, a sociopathic leader of an economically unstable nation with a big ass fucking army who likes to routinely threaten his neighbors getting nukes? Or are you just trying to say that the US is about the moral equivalent of those two and is just as likely to use the nukes in a devious way?

Kelgar wrote:Reading Comprehension 101: Arab community. IE Syria being threatened for possibly harboring former Iraqi officials of Saddam's regime for starters. Now recently this "warning" to Iran.

So asking Syria not to harbor Iraqi officials was making some kind of strenous demand on the Arab world that, if coupled with other such "agressive" actions, could spark the fire on a tinder box of anti American sentiment in the middle east that could lead to a catastrophic war or at the very least a wave of suicide attacks that makes 9/11 pale in comparison? Do you see why you get ignored most of the time when you bring up your views IRL? Did you always think that when those people smiled at you then walked away they were really just bowing to your obviously superior intellect because they knew they couldn't stand up to your masterful arguments? It's because you sound RIDICULOUS. Seriously, I'm a tolerant person and I know several people (my dad and brother included) who disagree with me on a variety of issues, but if any of them said any of this crap you are I'd walk away and not waste a single word on someone who's that fucking deranged.

Once again I'm going to say it, I'm glad you're not in a position of power. I've heard quite a lot about how now that Dubya is president it's obvious that any moron can sit in the oval office, but I think you would be crossing the line...

Kelgar wrote:The Bushies love people like you. Unfortunately, there's one of you born every second. It seems that stupid people seem to have a knack for breeding. You've moreorless just openly admitted that you eat any shit spoonfed to you by your current government. Can I get a "baaaah, baaaaah"?

Did you seriously just criticize me for my reading comprehension? This is the second time you've done this exact thing- used a reading comprehension joke (I swear the number of plays in your playbook of witty remarks is about as small as your IQ, and just as pathetic), then completely missed the point of something I said.

Brotha wrote:As far as Iran is concerned

Does that compute at all? If those things that I said about the CIA, Rumsfeld, and Bush are true then I'm going to be really fucking pissed, but guess what, I'm still not going to want Iran to have nukes.

Kelgar wrote:Are you spouting the same ol "no increased acts of terrorism yet" spiel again?

I concede that terrorism may increase because of our actions in Iraq, but it hasn't been and will not be ANYTHING on the scale that many appeasers claimed it would be.

My point was basically this: If you thought Saddam was a threat with his WMDs, then saying "we might piss the terrorists off" was being nothing but a pussy. If you thought Saddam with his WMDs wasn't a threat then it was just another of the negative things that would result from our actions and of course you'd point it out. If you wanted to argue that Iraq wasn't a threat then it was certainly a valid argument, but saying we shouldn't invade Iraq BECAUSE we would piss off terrorists made no sense. Same goes for Iran.

Kelgar wrote:The matter of Iran trying to obtain nukes is irelevant to the point I made earlier.

What point?

Kelgar wrote:From an " I can't watch you and the 1647572358 other people I've pissed off for 24/7" POV, I'd swallow my pride and kiss some serious ass. It only seems to make sense that the best way to avoid possible nuclear attacks would be to minimize or reduce the number of enemies you have.

Ass kissing= A-P-P-E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T

I agree with the try not to make enemies part, but I also say that we can't cower and let them do whatever they want because we don't want to upset them. And I'm also a realist. There are some people who you simply can't negotiate with and who only understand one language- strength.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 20, 2003, 11:49 pm

I would respond to brotha but I am a tad loaded. In this state I might come off sounding as stupid as brotha. Rather than do that I think I'll login to see what I missed tonight and then promptly pass out.

Night folks

.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 20, 2003, 11:49 pm

So asking Syria not to harbor Iraqi officials was making some kind of strenous demand on the Arab world that, if coupled with other such "agressive" actions, could spark the fire on a tinder box of anti American sentiment in the middle east that could lead to a catastrophic war or at the very least a wave of suicide attacks that makes 9/11 pale in comparison

Asking? There's a big difference between the phrase, "suck me bitch" and "pardon me my good sir, but would you terribly mind performing fellatio on me?". Show me an article where the US "asked" Syria not to harbor officials and I'll STFU about the matter.

The only "agressive" action I implied would set off an all out war against the US or a wave of 9/11's would be a direct invasion of another Arab country so soon after the Iraq fiasco. While people like you already say, "WMD's? Oh well, who cares? Saddam was a naughty, evil man who needed to be removed", everyone else in the international community isn't doing the same. The US may have bullied many countries into tossing their chips into the pile via the "with us or against us" bullshit, but the second time around will be far different should another preemptive strike be planned.

Do you see why you get ignored most of the time when you bring up your views IRL? Did you always think that when those people smiled at you then walked away they were really just bowing to your obviously superior intellect because they knew they couldn't stand up to your masterful arguments? It's because you sound RIDICULOUS. Seriously, I'm a tolerant person and I know several people (my dad and brother included) who disagree with me on a variety of issues, but if any of them said any of this crap you are I'd walk away and not waste a single word on someone who's that fucking deranged.

Oh's nos. You so pwned me. I think I'll go cry on my mammy's shoulder now. Why don't you go back to tipping cows or whatever else constitutes entertainment in Lubbock? Better yet, I hear there should be some position available as an undercover narc in some town 15 miles away from where you are. Maybe you can scrape up a decent living by fabricating tales of buying 8 balls from the locals there.

My point was basically this: If you thought Saddam was a threat with his WMDs, then saying "we might piss the terrorists off" was being nothing but a pussy. If you thought Saddam with his WMDs wasn't a threat then it was just another of the negative things that would result from our actions and of course you'd point it out. If you wanted to argue that Iraq wasn't a threat then it was certainly a valid argument, but saying we shouldn't invade Iraq BECAUSE we would piss off terrorists made no sense. Same goes for Iran.

Not one of the opponents to invasion here has ever fucking said that the main reason to not invade Iraq was due to fearing terrorist repercussion. Hello McFly? Is anybody home? The others have made the point clear that the whole issue wasn't whether or not Saddam had WMDs, but whether or not we could prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. The backlash will not come only from terrorists, but from the Arab community in general if Iran were to be invaded. Another invasion will be pretty much guarantee that the US goes about it alone.

What point?

If you're too lazy to read, then why bother asking? Just stay in your little blissful world of ignorance.

Ass kissing= A-P-P-E-A-S-E-M-E-N-T

Well duh. There are better ways of dealing with children that want to play with guns. Little Johnny will eventually find a way to get a gun no matter how hard you try to keep it away from him. Beating and spanking him saying, "No! No! No!" doesn't always seem to work that well because you'll have a resentful child who will not hesitate to point that gun at you should you ever try to take it away. Asskissing, while galling, is certainly more likely to keep your back out of the crosshairs.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 21, 2003, 12:00 am

Forthe wrote:I would respond to brotha but I am a tad loaded. In this state I might come off sounding as stupid as brotha. Rather than do that I think I'll login to see what I missed tonight and then promptly pass out.

Night folks .

Have a nice night Forthe Dont forget the asprin in the morning.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » June 21, 2003, 1:57 am

Kelgar wrote:Asking? There's a big difference between the phrase, "suck me bitch" and "pardon me my good sir, but would you terribly mind performing fellatio on me?". Show me an article where the US "asked" Syria not to harbor officials and I'll STFU about the matter.

Bush on Syria harboring fleeing Iraqi Baathists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2941505.stm

"Syria just needs to know we expect full co-operation and that we strongly urge them not to allow for Baath Party members or Saddam's families or generals on the run to find safe haven there," Mr Bush said.

While this isn't exactly "asking," it's not making some kind of unreasonable demand "or else" like you seem to be saying.

Rumsfeld on other countries aiding Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/28/sprj.i ... gon.syria/

Syria:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued a stern warning to Syria on Friday, saying military supplies, including night-vision goggles, were passing from that country into Iraq, posing a "direct threat" to coalition forces.

"We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing.

Iran:

"We will hold the Iranian government responsible for their actions and will view Badr Corps activity inside Iraq as unhelpful," he said. "Armed Badr Corps members found in Iraq will have to be treated as combatants."

In General:

"We don't want the conflict prolonged," he said. "And we don't want neighboring countries, or anyone else for that matter, to be in there assisting the Iraqi forces."

Is this dick swinging? Considering that it appeared other countries were directly jeopardizing US soldier's lives I'd say these were fairly moderate responses. Now, if Syria and Iran had not meddled in Iraq and Rumsfeld had said something like "we have an army in Iraq now, start paying us tribute or we're going to invade you" I might agree with you, but I just don't see the dick swinging.

Besides that, the state department classifies both Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism, so it's not like they're these innocent little countries being picked on by the big bad USA.

Kelgar wrote:While people like you already say, "WMD's? Oh well, who cares? Saddam was a naughty, evil man who needed to be removed", everyone else in the international community isn't doing the same.

There is a very big distinction that you need to make. True, even without WMDs I'd say Saddam was a brutal dictator who was a threat to peace, and the world is better off without him leading a nation. BUT that does not mean I would let Bush off the hook and condone us lying to the world.

Kelgar wrote:Oh's nos. You so pwned me. I think I'll go cry on my mammy's shoulder now. Why don't you go back to tipping cows or whatever else constitutes entertainment in Lubbock?...

I'll make a deal with you: I'll go back to cow tipping if you go back to being the little shit who has enough common sense to keep his mouth shut when he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. Unfortunately though, I've never tipped a cow, and you don't seem to have any common sense, so it looks like we're both out of luck.

Kelgar wrote:Well duh. There are better ways of dealing with children...

I disagree. When I got spanked (insert joke here) and punished as a child I learned that I better not do certain things or there WOULD be consequences. Iran has hopefully learned this lesson from our actions in Iraq.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » June 21, 2003, 5:50 am

I'll make a deal with you: I'll go back to cow tipping if you go back to being the little shit who has enough common sense to keep his mouth shut when he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. Unfortunately though,

So this means you do buy 8 balls as an undercover narc? Joy. Little shit eh? Wow, did you think of that gem yourself or did pappy learn ya's that one? It's funny as hell to read this from chump, know-it-all schmucks barely a year out of HS such as yourself. Doubly so because you're from that ever so towering mountain of cultural/social enlightenment town called Lubbock. Like the atypical brainiac we all know you to be

, you mistake my previous silence for not having anything to say when, in fact, it was more due to the fact that I am weighing my options.

A) I can waste my breath counterarguing with a moron who will never seem to "get it".
B) I can watch other people do it much more artfully than I am generally capable of.

I usually side with B) because I usually have better things to do with my time than arguing with schmucks because no one ever changes anyone else's mind, especially tards who's world views are skewed by these.

(Unfortunately, finding a pic of horse blinders sans horse was proving to be a troublesome task thus I leave this instead!)

If I bother to post, it's normally because I'm bored and have little else to do at that moment.

I've never tipped a cow, and you don't seem to have any common sense, so it looks like we're both out of luck.

Pot meet kettle.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » June 21, 2003, 2:34 pm

Wow...that was truly pathetic. I was thinking about actually wasting ten minutes writing out a real response, but then I realized I haven't planted an 8 ball on anyone in almost a week, so I gotta run man. Peace!