Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you guys think?

Its only a matter of time before we hit those bastards, too!

Go Dub'ya!

This is very, very worrying.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its only a matter of time before we hit those bastards, too!

Go Dub'ya! \

with what army? we barely even have a national guard because they're over in a hellish sandpit to defend us against the WMD's that were never there, and enriched uranium intelligence that dubya pulled out his ass. now its the real thing and we have little power to stop them.

GO DUBYA!!!

Oh, don't forget Bush could still use his diplomatic power.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haha...

Originally posted by Eis
What do you guys think? Didn't GWB use that same excuse to invade: Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan? What next: Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, Kuwait?

Peaceful?....Ok, if you call people like this ---> peaceful.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Peaceful?....Ok, if you call people like this ---> peaceful. I call that a smilie

whats interesting is the whole "spreading freedom" explanation won't work, since the vast majority of iran is shiite. i guess we're gonna get to see dubya crawl into the UN on all fours. "hey guys...remember me? about that stuff i said about not needing you...........i'm sowwy *bats eyelashes*"

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its only a matter of time before we hit those bastards, too!

Go Dub'ya!

We might not have too. Israel is really in trouble now that Iran has nukes of it's own. Israel will probably lead a preemptive attack on Iran.

Iran's own president or king whatever said that he wants to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. Them sound like fighting words. boxing

If Iran gets cocky, Israel wouldn't hesitate to use nukes of their own.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
We might not have too. Israel is really in trouble now that Iran has nukes of it's own. Israel will probably lead a preemptive attack on Iran.

Iran's own president or king whatever said that he wants to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. Them sound like fighting words. boxing

If Iran gets cocky, Israel wouldn't hesitate to use nukes of their own.

where do you people come from?..."iran has nukes of its own"

have you even been paying attention?

Originally posted by jaden101
where do you people come from?..."iran has nukes of its own"

have you even been paying attention?

They got nukes. Just like North Korea.

Iran: Were just gonna open a uranium mine for enrichment and new energy sources for our country...

Bullshit

They got nukes. They got at least one or two. We should have hit them instead of Iraq.

Great Googly Moogley's!!! Your from Scotland?

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its only a matter of time before we hit those bastards, too!

Go Dub'ya!

Yea ok, have fun being selected in the draft(if we go into iran, we'd need one to even have an army) while I vacation in Spain.

Originally posted by PVS
whats interesting is the whole "spreading freedom" explanation won't work, since the vast majority of iran is shiite. i guess we're gonna get to see dubya crawl into the UN on all fours. "hey guys...remember me? about that stuff i said about not needing you...........i'm sowwy *bats eyelashes*"

In your wildest dreams only, PVS.

UN needs the US far more than the other way around.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
In your wildest dreams only, PVS.

UN needs the US far more than the other way around.

Exactly.

The US is a big factor in the UN.



Back to the topic at hand, I am fairly certain if US doesn't make the first tactical strike againt Iran, Israel will.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Oh, don't forget Bush could still use his diplomatic power.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haha...

Really. Well, maybe thing's are looking up for Iran in a sense. Militarism, nukes... next will be running water and jobs!

This time the US can 'liberate' the people of Iran from a 'tyrant' who is over-whelmingly supported. Seeing as they did such a good job in winning the popular support and confidence in a country that actually wanted rid of their dictator, I'm sure the extraordinary subtleties of the US' persuasive techniques will be met with great success this time around.

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
Didn't GWB use that same excuse to invade: Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan? What next: Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, Kuwait?
As far as my knowledge goes, Iraq never officially announced they had successfully produced low grade enriched uranium.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
We might not have too. Israel is really in trouble now that Iran has nukes of it's own. Israel will probably lead a preemptive attack on Iran.

Iran's own president or king whatever said that he wants to annihilate Israel from the face of the earth. Them sound like fighting words. boxing

If Iran gets cocky, Israel wouldn't hesitate to use nukes of their own.
What the? Did you even read the article? Iran does not have nuclear bombs.
All they said is that they have uranium in a sufficient level to power a nuclear plant, no where near sufficient for a weapon.

I read the damn article. They either have one or two bombs or are on the way to making one. Doesn't matter. They shouldn't be doing it at all. We should have focused more on Iran and North Korea rather than Iraq.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
I read the damn article. Their either have one or two bombs or are on the way to making one. Doesn't matter. They shouldn't be doing it at all. We should have focused more on Iran and North Korea rather than Iraq.
If you did indeed read the article before making that post then you are an idiot.

What makes you so sure the Iranians have bombs? But yes they could be in the way of constructing one... It would still take them a while though.

The uranium they have is enriched at 3.5 percent. A nuclear weapon requires 90 percent.

It's all in the article.

Originally posted by Eis
If you did indeed read the article before making that post then you are an idiot.

What makes you so sure the Iranians have bombs? But yes they could be in the way of constructing one... It would still take them a while though.

The uranium they have is enriched at 3.5 percent. A nuclear weapon requires 90 percent.

It's all in the article.

Me an idiot? Takes one to know one Iranians are either lying about not having nukes, or lying about using nuclear energy for the benefit of their country in which they will actually make nukes.

Doesn't freaking matter. They shouldn't be dealing with anything Nuclear.

Their also testing new weapons and bragging about it.

They are more of a threat to us than Iraq. I'm willing to bet, that a bunch of Al Qaeda are hiding out there in Iran as well.

3.5 percent is a low number. Which means they probably have more of it somewhere.

Bush isn't the only one who lies you know.

Its bluffing, and it actually looks like they are playing poker.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
Me an idiot? Takes one to know one Iranians are either lying about not having nukes, or lying about using nuclear energy for the benefit of their country in which they will actually make nukes.

Doesn't freaking matter. They shouldn't be dealing with anything Nuclear.

Their also testing new weapons and bragging about it.

They are more of a threat to us than Iraq. I'm willing to bet, that a bunch of Al Qaeda are hiding out there in Iran as well.

3.5 percent is a low number. Which means they probably have more of it somewhere.

Bush isn't the only one who lies you know.
Maybe they are lying but you so deliberately claiming they do indeed have nukes is completely irrational. But I agree... Iranians having enriched uranium, not a good idea.

And they are not testing new weapons nor bragging about it.

Originally posted by PVS
since the vast majority of iran is shiite.

...from the "Had to read the sentence twice" Department...

Look at your yahoo news/google news.

"Iran touts itself as a nuclear power"

Their bragging about it. Their asking for a preemptive strike.

I may be wrong, but isn't there a huge difference between being able to make a nuclear weapon, and being able to make a nuclear weapon which can be delivered via terrorists? Just asking.

Nonetheless, the Equation does still hold: Terrorist State with Bomb Tech + Terrorists in the Field = Inevitable Big Trouble.

Let's hope that what we have (or should have) learned from invading Iraq will be applied to dealing with Iran, whatever route we take.

In the fourties someone from one of Israel's neighbouring state claimed to have a nuclear bomb made by a 'tin smith'. Clearly he had no idea what he was talking about.

I for one think no country should have nuclear weapons. But I'll admit it, I would feel more comfortable with Germany or France having nuclear weapons than Iran.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
Look at your yahoo news/google news.

"Iran touts itself as a nuclear power"

Their bragging about it. Their asking for a preemptive strike.
They are bragging about how they successfully produced enriched uranium! Not WEAPONS, Jesus.

Originally posted by Mindship
I may be wrong, but isn't there a huge difference between being able to make a nuclear weapon, and being able to make a nuclear weapon which can be delivered via terrorists? Just asking.

Nonetheless, the Equation does still hold: Terrorist State with Bomb Tech + Terrorists in the Field = Inevitable Big Trouble.

Let's hope that what we have (or should have) learned from invading Iraq will be applied to dealing with Iran, whatever route we take.
I don't know if there's a difference however, Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

Adam Warlock> Who says Iran will use it's nuclear weapons to attack ANYONE?
How many nuclear weapons have been used in war since they were invented??

Mindship> Define "terrorist state", please.

Eis> I agree. The world would probably be a lot safer without nuclear weapons. Why do you think Iran would be more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other state?
If the illegal creation of nuclear weapons should make the world attack a country, why, then, is Israel allowed it's "publicly secret" nukes?

To those of you shouting "let's invade Iran":
- Why not North Korea?
- Would you sign up and go fight in Iran?

I never said it was more likely for Iran to use nuclear weapons than any other state. I said I'd be more comfortable with Germany or France having nuclear weapons than Iran.

I think the US simply won't attack Israel because it's not an Islamic state. I'm not so sure if that's what you were asking.

Originally posted by The Omega
Mindship> Define "terrorist state", please.


To those of you shouting "let's invade Iran":
- Why not North Korea?
- Would you sign up and go fight in Iran?

I can answer mindship's question for you.---> Middle Eastern Nation + NUCLEAR FUKKING WEAPONS= Terrorist state. You really couldn't figure that out on your own?

Yes, I would enlist.

Originally posted by The Omega
Adam Warlock> Who says Iran will use it's nuclear weapons to attack ANYONE?
How many nuclear weapons have been used in war since they were invented??

Mindship> Define "terrorist state", please.

Eis> I agree. The world would probably be a lot safer without nuclear weapons. Why do you think Iran would be more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other state?
If the illegal creation of nuclear weapons should make the world attack a country, why, then, is Israel allowed it's "publicly secret" nukes?

To those of you shouting "let's invade Iran":
- Why not North Korea?
- Would you sign up and go fight in Iran?

If I have to define what a terrorist state is, I suspect no explanation will satisfy what you're looking for. Iran has stated it's feelings and intentions, and its actions speak louder than words with regard to inspections. While I applaud your attempt to be open-minded and magnanimous, I say the following with all due respect: he/she who thinks Iran is not a threat is living in a dream world.

The United States and Israel are no angels, but there is a major difference between us and a closed, medieval mindset, wherever it abides. Moral relativism is a fiction and therefore not applicable.

Well said.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
They got nukes. Just like North Korea.

Iran: Were just gonna open a uranium mine for enrichment and new energy sources for our country...

Bullshit

They got nukes. They got at least one or two. We should have hit them instead of Iraq.

Great Googly Moogley's!!! Your from Scotland?

yes i'm from Scotland...and no Iran dont have nukes...

what i find really funny is that many of you slam America for attacking Iraq even when there was internationally agreed evidence (That proved to be false) of them having WMD

yet the same people advocate attacking Iran despite the fact that there is no evidence that they have nuclear weapons...

who are the west to deny any other country from trying to adopt nuclear energy sources?...

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Yes, I would enlist.

why are you not presently enlisted?

Originally posted by botankus
...from the "Had to read the sentence twice" Department...

i had to read that twice to finally get it

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I can answer mindship's question for you.---> Middle Eastern Nation + NUCLEAR FUKKING WEAPONS= Terrorist state. You really couldn't figure that out on your own?

Yes, I would enlist.
Then Iran isn't a terrorist state, is it?

and i guess isreal is also a terrorist state.

...along with saudi arabia and pakistan

Originally posted by PVS
why are you not presently enlisted?

Because my oldest brother is--he's a fourth generation Marine. The oldest son in my family has traditionally joined the Corps for 4 generations now. However if/when it comes to invading the Iranians--I'll go down to the recruiting office.

North Korea should be taken out first, then Iran since I'm pretty sure they have nukes in their possession. We should make an example out of them. We should have hit them when they announced they were starting uranium enrichment.

I was a bit worried about Iran, but I thought to myself, with all the firepower Israel possesses, they could probably handle Iran all by themselves. For a little country, they sure possess a lot of firepower. It's only a matter of time before Israel launches preemptive strikes against Iran. They did it before, and will most likely do it again.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
We should have hit them when they announced they were starting uranium enrichment.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Because my oldest brother is--he's a fourth generation Marine. The oldest son in my family has traditionally joined the Corps for 4 generations now. However if/when it comes to invading the Iranians--I'll go down to the recruiting office.

we are at war right now in iraq and afghanistan. if you have not enlisted now, i dont believe you will. no offence but here you are, able bodied american, of age, war going on, and you're not there....which is fine. you have a choice (for now until the draft comes). but please dont talk cheap about how you would go if...

Originally posted by PVS
we are at war right now in iraq and afghanistan. if you have not enlisted now, i dont believe you will. no offence but here you are, able bodied american, of age, war going on, and you're not there....which is fine. you have a choice (for now until the draft comes). but please dont talk cheap about how you would go if...

It's not cheap talk--a third country is more than enough reason. Speaking of which, why aren't you enlisted?

Originally posted by PVS
and i guess isreal is also a terrorist state.

...along with saudi arabia and pakistan
Not also! Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons!

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
It's not cheap talk--a third country is more than enough reason. Speaking of which, why aren't you enlisted?

because i dont support the war, and because i'm too frikin old for boot camp. but you dont see me beating a war drum, screaming "GO DUBYA" and talking tough and cheap about what i would do if there were 3 wars going on instead of 2. (what a joke!!!! did you manage to hold a straight face when you typed that?)

Originally posted by PVS
because i dont support the war, and because i'm too frikin old for boot camp. but you dont see me beating a war drum, screaming "GO DUBYA" and talking tough and cheap about what i would do if there were 3 wars going on instead of 2. (what a joke!!!! did you manage to hold a straight face when you typed that?)

No it wasn't a joke. And it's the same war but with 2 different theatres.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
No it wasn't a joke. And it's the same war but with 2 different theatres.

its not the same war. we fight insurgents in iraq and the taliban in afghanistan. you really need to educate yourself before running off at the mouth.

Originally posted by PVS
its not the same war. we fight insurgents in iraq and the taliban in afghanistan. you really need to educate yourself before running off at the mouth.

And we fought Nazi's in Europe and Imperial Nippers in the South Pacific--same war, different theatres.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
And we fought Nazi's in Europe and Imperial Nippers in the South Pacific--same war, different theatres.

the nazis and japanese formed an alliance. therefore, yes it was the same war. btw, i have good news. your i.q. test came back negative.

Yeah seriously lets pat Iran on the back for nuclear energy since even without nuclear threats they love to bomb each other and openly talk of aggression twards Israel. I am sure they would never use Nuclear weapons I mean why when they already love chemical.

Originally posted by PVS
the nazis and japanese formed an alliance. therefore, yes it was the same war. btw, i have good news. your i.q. test came back negative.

The War against Terrorism--the same war.


Originally posted by Soleran
Yeah seriously lets pat Iran on the back for nuclear energy since even without nuclear threats they love to bomb each other and openly talk of aggression twards Israel. I am sure they would never use Nuclear weapons I mean why when they already love chemical.

I'm sure every Arab country--or Persian, whatever--is itchin' to nuke Israel, but they know they'd be blown to smithereens if they did.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
The War against Terrorism--the same war.

bush/cheney declared an alliance and there clearly was none between al qaeda and iraq. even they have admitted that they were mistaken, but thats ok since the idiotic mass-ass-public will still buy into the lie---i mean---error in intelligence, since it was repeated so many times. sort of like training a parrot to speak. wanna cracker?

Originally posted by Soleran
Yeah seriously lets pat Iran on the back for nuclear energy since even without nuclear threats they love to bomb each other and openly talk of aggression twards Israel. I am sure they would never use Nuclear weapons I mean why when they already love chemical.

I almost forgot about the chemical weapons they possess. They also do openly admit they will wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I'm sure every Arab country--or Persian, whatever--is itchin' to nuke Israel, but they know they'd be blown to smithereens if they did.

Also true. Israel won't ponder about a solution if their attacked, they'll use destructive overwhelming force against any country that attacks them. They'll react quickly and effectively.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
I almost forgot about the chemical weapons they possess. They also do openly admit they will wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

So?

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
Also true. Israel won't ponder about a solution if their attacked, they'll use destructive overwhelming force against any country that attacks them. They'll react quickly and effectively.

Israel will do nothing without the approval of the United States.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Israel will do nothing without the approval of the United States.

They've acted on their own against Iran before. US probably knew what they were going to do. But didn't care.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
But didn't care.

Wonder why?

Originally posted by PVS
the nazis and japanese formed an alliance. therefore, yes it was the same war. btw, i have good news. your i.q. test came back negative.

LMAO.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
It's not cheap talk--a third country is more than enough reason. Speaking of which, why aren't you enlisted?

Yep. Yep. I mean, one country invaded in response to an actual terror threat (Afghanistan), one invaded for shadowy reasons on false pretenses that was no threat and had nothing to do with Bin Laden. Yeah, two just ain't enough. But a third country that hasn't actually harmed the US invaded in contradiction to international laws, get ye to the recruiting office! It's the patriotic thing to do! Third times the winner!

Seriously I wondered at the double think of late. Recently on the news their was the big headline: Australia considering loosening laws and importing uranium to India, perhaps following US lead, despite India not being a signatory to all those nuclear acts. The next story was: Iran presses ahead with nuclear program, west shocked/outraged - they haven't signed all those nuclear acts, they are a threat.

I mean gee, hypocrisy or what? I'm not saying India and Iran are the same, but it just strikes me laughable that we will happily consider selling uranium to one nation with an existing nuclear arsenal and plans to expand that has on more then one occasion been on the brink with it's neighbours, but then scream bloody murder when another does a bit of enrichment. Especially when neither are full signatories of the relevant acts and don't allow UN inspectors to inspect.

But in the end I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear energy and do nuclear research. Of course it will probably lead to bombs being built (hell, what was one of the first things the US did with their early atomic research? Build some bombs? Drop a couple on Japan?) It a bad thing. It would be good if it didn't have to happen. But does the west have the legislative right to tell a nation they can't carry out atomic research? No.

Iran is asking to be bombed by Israel here:



Iran is heading for annihilation speaking like that. That's there freaking president saying that.

This is one of the main reasons why Iran shouldn't even be allowed near anything Nuclear.

He was so poetic in the end.........a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm. Wow I have such an image in my mind now, how beautiful.

Its ridiculious of people to sit back and say wow you guys in Iran have it going on nice job. By the way we know you wanna blow up your neighbors thats ok because we realize you just want a better energy source for your country though.

B.S. its not just the US asking Iran to back off of its production. I would bet they have weapons grade. No way in hell they are talking about blowing Israel off the map without something to back their game.

The middle east is such a religious crap house.

That's what I was saying. I don't think they would be talking sh!t like that without having something to back it up. They probably already have at least one nuke. Or enough material to make one.

If USA enters into Iran, USA will collapse. As you may know, Iran is much stronger than Iraq. USA have to risk much for this war. I know USA put Ahmedinecad in charge to haste the invasion of USA.

USA is scared to invade Iran by the way because they know Iran will resist.

For the nuclear threat, no need to worry yet. See 6 months later

What really amuses me is then when someone says..........."Why should you take the ability for them to produce energy for their people away with nuclear power?" The altruistics come in and IT gets piled on fast and deep.

Originally posted by Darkman87
If USA enters into Iran, USA will collapse. As you may know, Iran is much stronger than Iraq. USA have to risk much for this war. I know USA put Ahmedinecad in charge to haste the invasion of USA.

USA is scared to invade Iran by the way because they know Iran will resist.

For the nuclear threat, no need to worry yet. See 6 months later

US will probably not be doing it alone. Most likely ISRAEL will make the first move since Iran is clearly threatening them. Israel could easily annihilate Iran right now. Israel is very well capable of handling their own problems.

I actually look forward to Israel acting first in self defense. If they take out Iran, one less problem we have to worry about.

If you act first, it's not self-defense.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
If you act first, it's not self-defense.


If you act in response, your to late. The best defense is a great offense............paraphrased Art of War blah blah blah.

Yeah, what he said..

Originally posted by Soleran
If you act in response, your to late. The best defense is a great offense............paraphrased Art of War blah blah blah.

Word. But invasion and war isn't the answer. Throwing away thousand's of soldiers isn't the right way to do it.

I remember a certain democratic president who loved head, that bombed weapons facilities in Iraq, so well infact that the next president had to lie about said weapons to invade the country and cause a war.

There's also the saying of the opposite. The best offense is a great defense. Depends on who you ask really.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Word. But invasion and war isn't the answer. Throwing away thousand's of soldiers isn't the right way to do it.

I remember a certain democratic president who loved head, that bombed weapons facilities in Iraq, so well infact that the next president had to lie about said weapons to invade the country and cause a war.

There's also the saying of the opposite. The best offense is a great defense. Depends on who you ask really.

Perhaps but this isn't like someone coming to attack the US with tons of water between us and them this is a border to border war where TONS of destruction can and will occur quickly and leave little space to run. The numbers favor the muslims over the jewish significantly...........technology is Israels friend but going to man to man would be stupid.

If they smell an attack coming it makes sense (not nec to nuke) but to take offensive action to prevent and invassive force.

LOL Art of War also said somthing similar to that the best offense is a great defense However I illustrated why that might not suite their cause as well.

Eis> "I never said it was more likely for Iran to use nuclear weapons than any other state. I said I'd be more comfortable with Germany or France having nuclear weapons than Iran."
Why?

Diamondbullets> "Middle Eastern Nation + NUCLEAR FUKKING WEAPONS= Terrorist state. You really couldn't figure that out on your own?"
Oh, grow up!
So, Israel, being a Middle Eastern Nation with Nuclear Weapons is a terrorist state????
I don't see why you shouldn't enlist right now. Your brother being in the army does not prevent you from signing up, does it?

Mindship> "I suspect no explanation will satisfy what you're looking for." What do you think I am looking for? What feelings and intentions has Iran stated? Israel do not allow international inspections when it comes to nuclear weapons.

"he/she who thinks Iran is not a threat is living in a dream world."
Doesn't this sound a lot like what was said about Iraq some three years ago? Who attacked who?
I am not adhering to moral relativism. I am merely somewhat upset by the "let's-invade-Iran" yells I hear here. The dictatorship of North Korea certainly is no angel either, but where are the Bush-administrations plans to attack that nation??

jaden101> "who are the west to deny any other country from trying to adopt nuclear energy sources?..."
That's exactly my point. There are a lot of countries I'd rather not see have ANY weapons at all, let alone WMD. But why are some states allowed nuclear weapons and some are not??

PVS> "the nazis and japanese formed an alliance. therefore, yes it was the same war. btw, i have good news. your i.q. test came back negative."


Imperial Samurai> Well said.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its only a matter of time before we hit those bastards, too!

Go Dub'ya! Originally posted by Ushgarak
In your wildest dreams only, PVS.

UN needs the US far more than the other way around.






Originally posted by PVS
\

with what army? we barely even have a national guard because they're over in a hellish sandpit to defend us against the WMD's that were never there, and enriched uranium intelligence that dubya pulled out his ass. now its the real thing and we have little power to stop them.

GO DUBYA!!!

pre-emptive blowup , all of 'em.

We got nukes too.

GO DUBYA!

^I'll just let the above stand there for a while -

perhaps compare it to Adam Warlocks post above...

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
If they take out Iran, one less problem we have to worry about.

Here's a funny vid nocking Bush for his Iran policy:

http://www.devilducky.com/media/44421/

Originally posted by Soleran
Perhaps but this isn't like someone coming to attack the US with tons of water between us and them this is a border to border war where TONS of destruction can and will occur quickly and leave little space to run. The numbers favor the muslims over the jewish significantly...........technology is Israels friend but going to man to man would be stupid.

If they smell an attack coming it makes sense (not nec to nuke) but to take offensive action to prevent and invassive force.

LOL Art of War also said somthing similar to that the best offense is a great defense However I illustrated why that might not suite their cause as well.

Word, but you're speaking from the Iraeli's point of view, where they share a border, I was speaking from the American's point of view, where there's 3000 miles of water seperating us and them, and where nothing crosses that water without our knowing.

Certainly if Israel gets solid evidence that there will be some sort of immediate attack on them, it's in their best interest to stop it however they can. I agree with you there.

War only leads to more war. Invade Iran and we will more than likely have another world war, something which should never happen again. Trust is a hard thing, when a president of a country is saying they are going to wipe a nation from the map while at the same time developing uranium for nuclear energy it's hard to just ignore it. However Bush thinks he runs the world and not his country and for some reason feels the need to intervene in every other nation's affairs. Want my advice Bush? Let it be, let them settle their differences on their own because to be honest it has got **** all to do with you.

Why would Iran even think about using WMD on the US or any other western country for that matter? They would be obliterated if such a thing happened. Iran may be labeled as a 'terrorist state' but I was not under the impression they had the capability to launch such weapons half way around the world.

Originally posted by Magee
War only leads to more war. Invade Iran and we will more than likely have another world war, something which should never happen again. Trust is a hard thing, when a president of a country is saying they are going to wipe a nation from the map while at the same time developing uranium for nuclear energy it's hard to just ignore it. However Bush thinks he runs the world and not his country and for some reason feels the need to intervene in every other nation's affairs. Want my advice Bush? Let it be, let them settle their differences on their own because to be honest it has got **** all to do with you.



To answer that question, the Bible states that in the End Times, any country who goes against Israel, or more specifically, doesn't stand with them, will come to ruin.

It's why this country's presidents have always taken their side.

Until the recent past, we have always identified ourselves as a Christian nation.


Probably not what you wanted to hear, but......

I'm tempted to use the Bible sometimes.

Specifically when my toilet paper runs out.

Lucky for the Bible, I keep an extra roll under the bathroom sink.

*sigh*

Becuase THAT was necessary.

(and relevant)

Not at all!

This Random Crap Announcement is brought to you by Arachnoidfreak, the Internet, and the letter 'Q'.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
To answer that question, the Bible states that in the End Times, any country who goes against Israel, or more specifically, doesn't stand with them, will come to ruin.

It's why this country's presidents have always taken their side.

Until the recent past, we have always identified ourselves as a Christian nation.


Probably not what you wanted to hear, but......


Nope and our country shouldn't be running foreign policy from an outdated text about philsophy...................

Originally posted by Soleran
Nope and our country shouldn't be running foreign policy from an outdated text about philsophy...................

Domestic policy is based on the Bible, but foreign policy is not.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Domestic policy is based on the Bible, but foreign policy is not.

shithorse

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
That's what I was saying. I don't think they would be talking sh!t like that without having something to back it up. They probably already have at least one nuke. Or enough material to make one.

Ever heard or propaganda? Basic sabre rattling? The paper tiger? Talk, as they say, is cheap. Nations have harked on about destroying other nations since the first nations began. Does it mean all of them did it? No. Did even a lot do it? No. Did it even mean most of them had the ability to carry through on the threat? No.

Rhetoric is often just that - rhetoric. Scary, popularity winning words. It is remarkable that so many people fell for Bush rhetoric, Iranian rhetoric etc. One wonders if people didn't believe the words so easily would it be quite as easy for the speakers to get away with what they do?

Ah, but I am forgetting - go Dubya! People it seems want to believe there is a reason to "preemptively annihilate" and entire nation and it's people. We have nukes, lets preempt! People it seems are excited by the prospect of wars not fought in defense, but offense. People it seems would be happy to bring back such concepts as MAD. Who can you trust when a nation can preempt it's perceived enemies with no justifications (or falsified justifications?) at whim?

Hey everyone, let's invade iran, therefore starting a world war with China, Iran North Korea, Russia, and virtually the entire CIS. All those nuclear weapons...
I mean come on, what's 600 million dead when United Defense, Lockheed, General Electric and Haliburton can make trillions?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey everyone, let's invade iran, therefore starting a world war with China, Iran North Korea, Russia, and virtually the entire CIS. All those nuclear weapons...
I mean come on, what's 600 million dead when United Defense, Lockheed, General Electric and Haliburton can make trillions?


Since your a polisci major learn to present other points of view.........your "liberal" bleeding heart just gets old.

Wait, so not wanting to start a world war is being a bleeding heart liberal??

Originally posted by Eis
What do you guys think? I'm telling ya...

This is going to get interesting

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Wait, so not wanting to start a world war is being a bleeding heart liberal??


Nope I didn't say that, then again I don't need to post up all his topics to support that what I said. He is deliberatly attmepting to stir emotion by exaggerating and exacerbating for imagery, that's just junk.

Next the WHOLE world is going to be nuking each, yeah right many countries have had nukes and not gone out nuking other countries. However Iran has very specifically stated they do have goals to wipe out Israel. Will they, huh I cannot say. Let me ask you though would you wait for a serious attack on your country before acting if you knew you had hostile borders?

It's called the Realist theory of international relations. If a country views us as a threat to them or their resources, they will attack us regardless of treaty. This is opposed to the liberal theory of IR which is actually the one that neoconservatism is based on and assumes that human nature is cooperation and rationality. The world is in an unstable situation with a unipolar power (the US) after having bipolar powers for years (the US and the USSR), this creates instability, at least in the short run. What will happen in the long run is somethig we can barely predict cause there has never been a unipolar moment like this in the history of the world.

That was well put Jello.

I too, wonder if or how long this will last.

I think that China will soon tire of us, with a stronger economy, and a standing army of 1 million soldiers, we would be in dire straits.

China owns at least 40% of our economy via trade debt, we are also holding five of their nationals wrongly without trial in camp x-ray. and attack on Iran, a major supplier of resources to china, north korea, and the CIS would result in a declaration of war by literally half the world against the united states and its allies. Dictators like Kim Jung Il, Aleksander Lukashenka, Vladimir Putin, and Saparmurat Niyazov have the will and enough old soviet firepower and nuclear stockpiles to launch a devastating first assault. It is true that Russia and especiallyTajikistan have oil (Tajikistan, may actually have the largest untapped oil reserve in history) but they do not have the workforce or infrastructure to extract and process it for self sufficiencey, so unless another exporter can be found, ie. Alaska, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc., war will be immenent.
Note that I didn't even consider Venezuala. Their fuel processing is substandard, causing heavy pollution, inefficient energy extraction, and engine wear, so it is actually banned in many countries.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
China owns at least 40% of our economy via trade debt, we are also holding five of their nationals wrongly without trial in camp x-ray. and attack on Iran, a major supplier of resources to china, north korea, and the CIS would result in a declaration of war by literally half the world against the united states and its allies. Dictators like Kim Jung Il, Aleksander Lukashenka, Vladimir Putin, and Saparmurat Niyazov have the will and enough old soviet firepower and nuclear stockpiles to launch a devastating first assault. It is true that Russia and especiallyTajikistan have oil (Tajikistan, may actually have the largest untapped oil reserve in history) but they do not have the workforce or infrastructure to extract and process it for self sufficiencey, so unless another exporter can be found, ie. Alaska, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc., war will be immenent.
Note that I didn't even consider Venezuala. Their fuel processing is substandard, causing heavy pollution, inefficient energy extraction, and engine wear, so it is actually banned in many countries.


Take away Iran's religious fundamental leaders who threaten to wipe countries off the map then I am ok with them and nuclear. Also the likelyhood of Iran's allies backing them if they move on Israel is slim to none unless they are ready for another world war (then you should start to look at their agendas once again china wants japan etc ) cuz they won't just back Iran on the strength of its your right to blast Israel.

This is assuming of course Iran is the antagonist and strikes or moves hostilities on Israel.

Originally posted by Soleran
Let me ask you though would you wait for a serious attack on your country before acting if you knew you had hostile borders?

No, any minor attack would be provication enough, but are either Iraq or Iran on our borders?

I have to add, "exacerbating" is a great ****ing word and so rarely used. You're awesome.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's called the Realist theory of international relations. If a country views us as a threat to them or their resources, they will attack us regardless of treaty. This is opposed to the liberal theory of IR which is actually the one that neoconservatism is based on and assumes that human nature is cooperation and rationality. The world is in an unstable situation with a unipolar power (the US) after having bipolar powers for years (the US and the USSR), this creates instability, at least in the short run. What will happen in the long run is somethig we can barely predict cause there has never been a unipolar moment like this in the history of the world.

Rome was a superpower in its day and arguably the only one with an international military presence. Of course, at certain points the army of China could contend, but they rarely had the motivation to do so, concerned with unifying the country at that time.

But on the other observations, well said. Attacking Iran is politically a bad move.

Originally posted by Soleran
Next the WHOLE world is going to be nuking each, yeah right many countries have had nukes and not gone out nuking other countries. However Iran has very specifically stated they do have goals to wipe out Israel. Will they, huh I cannot say. Let me ask you though would you wait for a serious attack on your country before acting if you knew you had hostile borders?

Well, during the Cold War Soviet rhetoric often included toppling Capitalist nations, destroying them and all that. There are specific threats against the US. Did anything come of it other then decades of tension (and proxy wars with supporters of the two nations)? No. One could say they are different circumstances, but it very much boiled down to ideology vs. ideology, much the same in the whole Iran vs. Israel (face value at least.) Now, isn't it good that leaders of the time didn't panic and think "The Soviets are threatening us, lets launch and all out nuclear attack before they can carry through and then bunker down and wait for the Soviet nuclear retaliation"

Now I do not think think that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons. They would know the consequences if they did. The leaders might very well be religiously motivated, but they aren't that stupid. Add to the fact that the Islamic world actually wants the land Israel holds, it's hard to believe they would want it turned into a nuclear wasteland that would have the potential to harm surrounding Islamic nations.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
To answer that question, the Bible states

to address the question of US v Iran, is small-minded and idiotic. Too many of the neo-cons in this forum are speaking, when they should be listening. The whole idea that war is good permeates your posts. There is no such thing as a good war. To think otherwise is ridiculous. You're apparently too stupid to figure that out. You have this juvinile notion that the US is unbeatable and absolute. Well, that's just stupid and uninformed. Which is exactly my point. You are feeding others sound bites from FOX news and not taking even a moment to figure this stuff out for yourselves. You're an embarrassment to teh very way of life you think you support.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
to address the question of US v Iran, is small-minded and idiotic. Too many of the neo-cons in this forum are speaking, when they should be listening. The whole idea that war is good permeates your posts. There is no such thing as a good war. To think otherwise is ridiculous. You're apparently too stupid to figure that out. You have this juvinile notion that the US is unbeatable and absolute. Well, that's just stupid and uninformed. Which is exactly my point. You are feeding others sound bites from FOX news and not taking even a moment to figure this stuff out for yourselves. You're an embarrassment to teh very way of life you think you support.

Here, here. Well said.

I was slightly surprised upon returning to the forums to see all these "Go Dubya's" at the end of posts. Just struck me as absurd and childish.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
to address the question of US v Iran, is small-minded and idiotic. Too many of the neo-cons in this forum are speaking, when they should be listening. The whole idea that war is good permeates your posts. There is no such thing as a good war. To think otherwise is ridiculous. You're apparently too stupid to figure that out. You have this juvinile notion that the US is unbeatable and absolute. Well, that's just stupid and uninformed. Which is exactly my point. You are feeding others sound bites from FOX news and not taking even a moment to figure this stuff out for yourselves. You're an embarrassment to teh very way of life you think you support.

I agree, but wouldn't it have saved you precious time and calories to just call him a jingoist?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Here, here. Well said.

I was slightly surprised upon returning to the forums to see all these "Go Dubya's" at the end of posts. Just struck me as absurd and childish.

yet i'm guessing that you think calling people small minded and idiotic is a perfectly acceptable and non childish way of debating?

Originally posted by jaden101
yet i'm guessing that you think calling people small minded and idiotic is a perfectly acceptable and non childish way of debating?

Well, I don't believe I have used idiotic or small minded in this thread. But anyway, being a debater from way back I know that in a competition one should refrain from referring to ones' opponents in a negative way (though there have been times I wish I could say "You sir are an ass!" - but you can say something to the effect of "an argument which is patently absurd, bordering on the idiotic/insane/irrational."

It's all about tact, you see. Using ones God given vocabulary. I think there is a time and place for certain words. I find the whole "Go Dubya" childish when it is used in such an immature way and with no real logic or reason to back it up. That is how I would describe it. Some would call it idiotic, and I can understand why they would say that. Now I imagine you are referring to my approval of Capt_Fantastic's summery. I find it accurate and I agree with the sentiment he is expressing.

Now, is it fair or good to use small minded or idiotic? Here it is directed towards the kind of mindset that is basically - "Annihilate them" "Nuke them" "the whole region should be glassed" "Lets get those bastards" etc etc etc (not all those phrases used here) and in some situations a lack of knowledge of the political situation or the world situation these opinions are being based on. Like saying again and again they have nukes when there is no such proof. Or a phrase about "liberal bleeding hearts."

Now as I said there is a time in a debate for such words. The question of US vs. Iran, and some of the answer given has revealed some small mindedness. Such a phrase can be used in a competitive debate - because world views and opinions can be small minded if they are built upon lack of facts, ignorance to some greater bit of information, deliberately erroneous opinions or arguments that are twisted by the debaters own bias. It need not even be seen as an insult (though it can be used as one.) And Capt_Fantastic supported his reason for using such words in a perfectly reasonable manner, and as such in a way that I would not consider childish.

there is, as you say, a hell of a lot of posts based on "they probably have" arguments...and yes you can level lots of insults at the people who make these posts

but it's far more effective to simply prove them wrong...

Who says you can't do both?

noone...but given that insulting people just makes you look as foolish as them...what would be the point

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Using ones God given vocabulary.

Now as I said there is a time in a debate for such words. The question of US vs. Iran, and some of the answer given has revealed some small mindedness. Such a phrase can be used in a competitive debate - because world views and opinions can be small minded if they are built upon lack of facts, ignorance to some greater bit of information, deliberately erroneous opinions or arguments that are twisted by the debaters own bias. It need not even be seen as an insult (though it can be used as one.) And Capt_Fantastic supported his reason for using such words in a perfectly reasonable manner, and as such in a way that I would not consider childish.

Whats a God given vocabulary?

I agree US vs Iran is troublesome waters indeed. Which is why I can only speak for myself when I say this. Most of my comments were directed at Iran vs Israel which is a VERY LARGE concern. The reality is this political arena you are speaking of is shit, it always has been and will continue to be such. If the USA should get involved (I certainly hope that it doesn't) at least there are many other countries concerned with Iran's possible nuclear threat.

Iran has recently been very boastful of its recent military developments and what they can and are willing to do with them. Iran is a nuclear country and since the US up to the 70's assisted the middle east in nuclear development it is foolish to overlook that fact there very well could be nuclear arms available especially with the disarmarmement of the previous USSR. Another tactic you forget to post is deliberatly bait your enemy into thinking you have less then you really do, this is also a very common practice.

To foolishly think that a country as historically hostile as Iran in that region is being tongue in cheek is blind. Save your political passivity's for the UN.

Originally posted by jaden101
yet i'm guessing that you think calling people small minded and idiotic is a perfectly acceptable and non childish way of debating?

Some times, you have to approach them on their level. In point of fact, it IS small minded and childish to support the start of an invasion and a war without informing yourself and seeking justification. You're not oblivious. I'm addressing certain members who spew soundbites and consider themselves well read on the subject. I'm addressing those members who come into a thread and think that because they're Americans and Bush supporters, they have the right to say that we should just wipe out the entire middle east...because it's our right, like it's some new form of manifest destiny. It's just stupid. It's childish on the level of the playground bully mentality. And more importantly, it's irresponsible.

Originally posted by Soleran
Most of my comments were directed at Iran vs Israel which is a VERY LARGE concern.

Why?

I'm not accusing you of this, but so many people on your side of the aisle are getting their panties in a bunch over Israel. I don't understand the mentality that US is awsome, and everyone else be damned...oh, except for Israel. We have gotten in more shit over Israel in the middle east than I can list! What is this fanatical devotion to Israel that so many people have, politically? They have their own country, now let them take care of it. More importantly, let them take care of it themselves, without acting like they're the 51st American state.

^ because the USA will more then likely make it their business, as well as the UN. Iran is a country led by a fundamentalist govt. as such they are vocal about their intentions and what that includes.

I have a real problem with christianity in politics however the Muslims that are speaking the loudest are also the most radical and in charge of their country, I don't trust that at all do you?

Arachnoidfreak> "Wait, so not wanting to start a world war is being a bleeding heart liberal??"
Appears so, doesn't it?? Why is no one contesting that??

Soleran> "He is deliberatly attmepting to stir emotion by exaggerating and exacerbating for imagery, that's just junk."
You go after the MAN, not his arguments is not exactly proving your side of the story isn't it? Just kinda looks like you don't HAVE any counter-arguments.

Imperial_Samurai> Well said all along. That a nations "shakes its fist" at other nations does NOT mean it will actually go to war. ANY Iranian leader will know, that if the Iranian government launches as much as a stone towards Israel, the rest of the world would strike down, hard, on Iran.
I suspect Iran wants nuclear weapons to AVOID being invaded itself. ANd maybe some of the american neocons around here seems to think, that because GWB said "Iraq is a threat, let's invade", that other countries will act the same way.

jaden101>"yet i'm guessing that you think calling people small minded and idiotic is a perfectly acceptable and non childish way of debating?"
Actually, if you'd bother reading Imperial_Samurais post, you'd notice that he called the ACT of wrting "Go Dubya's" absurd and childish. NOT the actual posters. BIG difference.

The main reason people are getting uppity is because were giving a country who has blatantly declared that it wants to destroy it's enemies (and in a rather brutal fashion at that) access to one of the most powerful and destructive weapons on the planet , for all the faults america , Britain, france, and the rest of the nuke toting countries have they haven't (so far) declared (several times) that they wish to annihilate an entire country.

This is why we shouldn't give the Iranians nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by The Omega

Actually, if you'd bother reading Imperial_Samurais post, you'd notice that he called the ACT of wrting "Go Dubya's" absurd and childish. NOT the actual posters. BIG difference.

thats a get out clause of an excuse if ever i read one...regardless there is very little difference

what's more bizarre is that when you read through the previous pages of post...most of the posts with "go dubya" are so riddled with sarcasm that anyone attacking them seem to be missing the point

Originally posted by jaden101
there is, as you say, a hell of a lot of posts based on "they probably have" arguments...and yes you can level lots of insults at the people who make these posts

but it's far more effective to simply prove them wrong...

Well, as you can see from the beginning of the thread people have tried to do just that - such as basically saying "The article doesn't mention Iran possessing nuclear weapons" "There is very little likelihood of them already having them due to the complexity of the process (3% enriched uranium etc) - perfectly clear logic was used numerous times to prove such posts wrong, but it rarely seems to have stuck.



Are you saying that the posters who use "GO DUBYA" are actually trying to create satire? That they don't actually support the Bush administration at all? That they don't actually mean the posts they make and end with "GO DUBYA", the ones with such opinions as preemptive nuking, anti-gay sentiments (in other threads as such)? I think I, and many other people get the sense they like Bush, like what he has done, and would like him to continue doing it - that is "take the bastards out." If that is the case they can come here and say "It's true, it was sarcastic, we actually don't mean what they are saying" and I would apologise, as I don't mind being wrong, it is a learning process. However I can't see them coming here and saying "We believe gays should marry and Bush shouldn't be going to war at the drop of a hat." Prove me wrong people, prove me wrong.

And I stand by what I said. The "GO DUBYA" slogan is childish. It has no meaning, it is used in an insightful manner, it is like driving a car with a "Go Home Foreigners" bumper sticker through an immigrant neighbourhood. Is it needed? No. It is the equivalent of sticking ones tongue out. Maybe the posters think it's cool, they can. The slogan itself is childish. They could whip up something witty, they could whip up something that actually makes sense or is specific. Just "GO DUBYA" though?

Originally posted by Eis
What do you guys think?


All sides be saied, I'll protect you. Forget these others...

I care about you.


others don't

Originally posted by Soleran
Whats a God given vocabulary?

Don't worry, I meant nothing religious by it. It's a turn of phrase - like "God given rights"or using ones "God given legs"- that kind of thing. Has nothing to do with God, but it is one of those old phrases that has stuck.

Of course, in simple terms, ones vocabulary is all the words a person knows (or that exist in a language) - and making use of ones vocabulary is useful in many fields - such as a the example I was using of the competitive debate. There you want to get your point across in a fashion that keeps it true to its purpose without offending or insulting those your debating with, which, in a such a debate would loose points.However sometimes you have to emphasise your rebuttal to an argument, which means going on the attack - but once again not in an insulting manner, because that doesn't benefit anybody and it isn't nice.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, as you can see from the beginning of the thread people have tried to do just that - such as basically saying "The article doesn't mention Iran possessing nuclear weapons" "There is very little likelihood of them already having them due to the complexity of the process (3% enriched uranium etc) - perfectly clear logic was used numerous times to prove such posts wrong, but it rarely seems to have stuck.



Are you saying that the posters who use "GO DUBYA" are actually trying to create satire? That they don't actually support the Bush administration at all? That they don't actually mean the posts they make and end with "GO DUBYA", the ones with such opinions as preemptive nuking, anti-gay sentiments (in other threads as such)? I think I, and many other people get the sense they like Bush, like what he has done, and would like him to continue doing it - that is "take the bastards out." If that is the case they can come here and say "It's true, it was sarcastic, we actually don't mean what they are saying" and I would apologise, as I don't mind being wrong, it is a learning process. However I can't see them coming here and saying "We believe gays should marry and Bush shouldn't be going to war at the drop of a hat." Prove me wrong people, prove me wrong.

And I stand by what I said. The "GO DUBYA" slogan is childish. It has no meaning, it is used in an insightful manner, it is like driving a car with a "Go Home Foreigners" bumper sticker through an immigrant neighbourhood. Is it needed? No. It is the equivalent of sticking ones tongue out. Maybe the posters think it's cool, they can. The slogan itself is childish. They could whip up something witty, they could whip up something that actually makes sense or is specific. Just "GO DUBYA" though?

you're making my point...i know and you know the article doesn't say Iran has nukes...it's far easier to just prove the genuine "go dubya" posse by showing them that...there isn't a need to attack the way they make their point but simply the points they try to make

as for the other threads...i dont venture into to threads which hold no interest for me...hence i've never really read the gay marriages threads and others like it...

but when you consider that one of the people who in this thread has used "go dubya" as being PVS...well that says it all

Originally posted by jaden101
you're making my point...i know and you know the article doesn't say Iran has nukes...it's far easier to just prove the genuine "go dubya" posse by showing them that...there isn't a need to attack the way they make their point but simply the points they try to make

but when you consider that one of the people who in this thread has used "go dubya" as being PVS...well that says it all

Oh, I had the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't looking at PVS or myself (I know both of us used it in a sarcastic fasion once each.) My mistake. My oppinion was in referance to its use in the serious manner, and I thought those cases were what you were refering to.

Grey Fox>"america , Britain, france, and the rest of the nuke toting countries have they haven't (so far) declared (several times) that they wish to annihilate an entire country."
Hm... who's currently engaged in war?? Not Iran.

Jaden101> "thats a get out clause of an excuse if ever i read one...regardless there is very little difference."
Well, then you obviously read far too little then. There is a BIG difference between saying an ACT is stupid and childish, and saying an entire PERSON is stupid and childish. You can't tell the difference??? Well, then...

Originally posted by The Omega
Soleran> "He is deliberatly attmepting to stir emotion by exaggerating and exacerbating for imagery, that's just junk."
You go after the MAN, not his arguments is not exactly proving your side of the story isn't it? Just kinda looks like you don't HAVE any counter-arguments.

jaden101>"yet i'm guessing that you think calling people small minded and idiotic is a perfectly acceptable and non childish way of debating?"
Actually, if you'd bother reading Imperial_Samurais post, you'd notice that he called the ACT of wrting "Go Dubya's" absurd and childish. NOT the actual posters. BIG difference.

If you want to play referee fine just keep the rules consistant.

I didn't attack Darth Jello I commented on his depiction of events and said his USE of it sucked, the same way Jaden101 did............ref away.

Iran is also helping fund the Hamas. Iran has recently generously pledged 50 million dollars to the Hamas. What's stopping Iran in a few years from lending the Hamas a few nukes to carry out more bombings. Their was recently a bombing in Tel Aviv during passover. The Hamas called it a legitimate bombing...

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
Iran is also helping fund the Hamas. Iran has recently generously pledged 50 million dollars to the Hamas. What's stopping Iran in a few years from lending the Hamas a few nukes to carry out more bombings. Their was recently a bombing in Tel Aviv during passover. The Hamas called it a legitimate bombing...

i know whats stopping them...the fact that THEY DONT HAVE ANY NUKES

i notice you also neglect to mention that hamas are now a democratically elected government

The following is a message from the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be:
I am the greatest DOA player alive. My skillz pass the borders of greatness and magnificent and ascends to levels of that beyond comprehension. Defeating me is like mission impossible, AND NONE OF YOU ARE TOM CRUISE!

For years I've displayed my incredible incredible beyond belief skillz in local tournaments and to whoever thought they could defeat me. Taking out all those who thought they had gual. For years I have been honing my skillz waiting for the moment that will allow me to show the WORLD my power. Now, finally a medium has been created that will allow me to show you my complete unabridged power! Like the pieces of Exodia the forbidden one formed together to create a being of infinite power who's victory cannot be stopped all the tools that will allow me to own you all now exists. Like opening the portal to hell and letting the most horrid of demons step upon earthly soil.

Head these words. These are not boasts nor empty threats! This is not an attempt at trolling nor the words of a uneducated fool who knows nothing about how real DOA is played. My skills are flawless. And to prove it, to affirm my superiority among you fools, I challenge EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED ONE OF YOU to a game of Dead Or Alive Ultimate.
Is there any who thinks that they can defeat me? Is there any man who has the gual to think that they could even comprehend my power muchless match it?
If I said I was challenging the best of the best and the greatest of the greatest I'd be talking about playing my self. So instead I say bring it... so I can sling.
Team KMC... you have unleashed a monster. A wolf left to deal with meer sheep. None shall defeat me!
So come, if you think can defeat me. Come, if you think you can step to me. Come, if you think you have what it takes.


battling it out on the daily over xbox live.

I come here, looking for a contender. Looking for a challenge. So that I can state my claim. And what do I find... NOTHING!

I see there is none brave enough to accept my challenge. None powerful enough to hope to defeat me.

As soon as I heard about this games release I began training even harder than usual. Using both state-of-the-art and unorthodox training proceedings. I was already the best, but when I heard about internet play I was compelled to get stronger. Compelled to grow stronger! Compelled to train hard!

Even though I can defeat everyone I play with utter ease and skill (i'm in chicago by the way) it is not simply because I beat people that I kNOW I'm the best. It is because of ease of my movement. The grace of my counters. The fierceness of my combos. The grace of my technique, and the innateness of my superiority that I kNOW I am the best.

That's why I waited to close to the release date to let my incredible skill be knowned. To warn you all of the tornado known as JustOwnin that is coming. So that you all can prepare... for the fight of your lives.

Be a fool and doubt my skillz now if it makes you sleep better but know this: MY SKILLZ ARE FLAWLESS!

Let us examine the word flawless for a second. The dictionary.com definition of flawless is, "Being entirely without flaw or imperfection. " That exact definition defines my skills. Which means that if there is any flaw in your game, any imperfection or weakness that exists within your psyche. Then you simply can't win.

Only the flawless can beat the flawless and the fearless defeats the brave.
GAMETAGE: JustOwnin

Originally posted by JustOwnin
The following is a message from the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be:
I am the greatest DOA player alive. My skillz pass the borders of greatness and magnificent and ascends to levels of that beyond comprehension. Defeating me is like mission impossible, AND NONE OF YOU ARE TOM CRUISE!

For years I've displayed my incredible incredible beyond belief skillz in local tournaments and to whoever thought they could defeat me. Taking out all those who thought they had gual. For years I have been honing my skillz waiting for the moment that will allow me to show the WORLD my power. Now, finally a medium has been created that will allow me to show you my complete unabridged power! Like the pieces of Exodia the forbidden one formed together to create a being of infinite power who's victory cannot be stopped all the tools that will allow me to own you all now exists. Like opening the portal to hell and letting the most horrid of demons step upon earthly soil.

Head these words. These are not boasts nor empty threats! This is not an attempt at trolling nor the words of a uneducated fool who knows nothing about how real DOA is played. My skills are flawless. And to prove it, to affirm my superiority among you fools, I challenge EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED ONE OF YOU to a game of Dead Or Alive Ultimate.
Is there any who thinks that they can defeat me? Is there any man who has the gual to think that they could even comprehend my power muchless match it?
If I said I was challenging the best of the best and the greatest of the greatest I'd be talking about playing my self. So instead I say bring it... so I can sling.
Team KMC... you have unleashed a monster. A wolf left to deal with meer sheep. None shall defeat me!
So come, if you think can defeat me. Come, if you think you can step to me. Come, if you think you have what it takes.


battling it out on the daily over xbox live.

I come here, looking for a contender. Looking for a challenge. So that I can state my claim. And what do I find... NOTHING!

I see there is none brave enough to accept my challenge. None powerful enough to hope to defeat me.

As soon as I heard about this games release I began training even harder than usual. Using both state-of-the-art and unorthodox training proceedings. I was already the best, but when I heard about internet play I was compelled to get stronger. Compelled to grow stronger! Compelled to train hard!

Even though I can defeat everyone I play with utter ease and skill (i'm in chicago by the way) it is not simply because I beat people that I kNOW I'm the best. It is because of ease of my movement. The grace of my counters. The fierceness of my combos. The grace of my technique, and the innateness of my superiority that I kNOW I am the best.

That's why I waited to close to the release date to let my incredible skill be knowned. To warn you all of the tornado known as JustOwnin that is coming. So that you all can prepare... for the fight of your lives.

Be a fool and doubt my skillz now if it makes you sleep better but know this: MY SKILLZ ARE FLAWLESS!

Let us examine the word flawless for a second. The dictionary.com definition of flawless is, "Being entirely without flaw or imperfection. " That exact definition defines my skills. Which means that if there is any flaw in your game, any imperfection or weakness that exists within your psyche. Then you simply can't win.

Only the flawless can beat the flawless and the fearless defeats the brave.
GAMETAGE: JustOwnin

The next time you have a thought......


let it go.

Originally posted by jaden101
i know whats stopping them...the fact that THEY DONT HAVE ANY NUKES

Did I say they were going to give them anything now besides the the 50 million dollars they pledged? I said in a few years. Did you not read the post? Iran's generals have been quoting themselves about being able to make nukes in 3 years. If we let them continue on with the Nuclear program, in a few years they could lend the Hamas a nuclear warhead. Annihilate Israel through the Palestinians is probably something they have in mind.

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
What's stopping Iran in a few years from lending the Hamas a few nukes to carry out more bombings.

See, I said a few years. In a few years they could potentially make good with their threats of annihilating Israel.

Originally posted by jaden101
i notice you also neglect to mention that hamas are now a democratically elected government

Hamas also supports terrorism against Israel and calls legitimate when low life suicide bombers bomb crowded areas.

Originally posted by jaden101
i know whats stopping them...the fact that THEY DONT HAVE ANY NUKES

I know how you feel.



Once again rhetoric. Saying something doesn't make it so. 3 Years would only be possible if Iran got a major tech and knowledge boost, and soon. And seeing as how the nations capable of offering that are unlikely to do so, Iran is not going to have nuclear weapons to pass out like cigars any time soon.

As well as the fact, you know, the Palestinians actually want the land the Israelis have. It's kind of important to them, chucking dirty bombs or conventional nukes about is not going to do nice things to that land.

As to lending money - whether we like it or not HAMAS is the democratically elected Representatives of the Palestinian people. With the US and EU freezing aid where precisely are they meant to get funds to do anything for the people to elect them? And Iran is perfectly in it's rights to give money to other governments - like the HAMAS authority. And I mean, did you know that various western powers gave money, weapons, knowledge to forces that some would consider terrorist in the past? During the Cold War? Perhaps for a more moral reason, but it happens. Now it is odd the west is crying foul over Iran giving money - expert after expert stated quite clearly after the HAMAS victory that freezing aid funds to them would force them to look for financial help elsewhere - and almost all of them said Iran would be at the top of that list. It's not an unforeseen development.

Also interesting, do you know that US & EU aid has passed millions to HAMAS politicians over the years? This is the first time it has been the ruling government, but HAMAS has plenty of people elected at state level, at local level (mayors etc), and have been elected for years. Thus they have been getting funds for years as well - which incidentally have actually been used on legitimate projects relevant to their posts -maintaining infrastructure, building hospitals, sanitation - all that jazz. The kind of projects mayors and governors are responsible for.

edit: double post

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
Did I say they were going to give them anything now besides the the 50 million dollars they pledged? I said in a few years. Did you not read the post? Iran's generals have been quoting themselves about being able to make nukes in 3 years. If we let them continue on with the Nuclear program, in a few years they could lend the Hamas a nuclear warhead. Annihilate Israel through the Palestinians is probably something they have in mind.



See, I said a few years. In a few years they could potentially make good with their threats of annihilating Israel.



Hamas also supports terrorism against Israel and calls legitimate when low life suicide bombers bomb crowded areas.

you're accusing me of not reading your posts...well how about this one...your very first one in this thread



then of course there was this one



oh...and this



the delusions are crumbling slightly



oh no its not



keep it up son...you're doin well



thats right...you can be quiet and go sit in the corner now

Adam Warlock> "What's stopping Iran in a few years from lending the Hamas a few nukes to carry out more bombings."
Well, governments around the world have been known to support other groups or governments who shared their goals/interests etc. The US is a good example.
Why should Iran do such a thing? That would be political suicide. Iranians love their children, too.

"The Hamas called it a legitimate bombing..." Do you know what went ahead of that incident?

Impeial_Samurai> I commend your patience! Really. Thumbs up to you. But do you ever get the feeling they are not READING your posts?

Originally posted by The Omega
Impeial_Samurai> I commend your patience! Really. Thumbs up to you. But do you ever get the feeling they are not READING your posts?

It's something I sometimes suspect, but I will persist!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
The next time you have a thought......


let it go.

How...christian...of you

Really I think that we don't need any more nukes in this world. We have too many of the horrible things as it is.

People who actually believe that Iran will not attempt to produce a nuclear weapon are just shitting themselves. Now I'm not saying that anyone should invade Iran becuase that would only cause more problems. However, something must be done to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology. Ecenominc(sp sorry) sanctions, something to show Iran that deveolpment of Nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Really I think that we don't need any more nukes in this world. We have too many of the horrible things as it is.

People who actually believe that Iran will not attempt to produce a nuclear weapon are just shitting themselves. Now I'm not saying that anyone should invade Iran becuase that would only cause more problems. However, something must be done to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology. Ecenominc(sp sorry) sanctions, something to show Iran that deveolpment of Nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.

Thats conducive~

Iran will, just as thw nuclear others will. There is no differentiation. You will, just as I will.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Really I think that we don't need any more nukes in this world. We have too many of the horrible things as it is.

People who actually believe that Iran will not attempt to produce a nuclear weapon are just shitting themselves. Now I'm not saying that anyone should invade Iran becuase that would only cause more problems. However, something must be done to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology. Ecenominc(sp sorry) sanctions, something to show Iran that deveolpment of Nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.

I believe they will develop nukes. But should sanctions be placed against all the other nations actively maintaining and/or expanding their nuclear arsenal? Wasn't the US toying with the idea of pursuing small bunker busting nukes that would have a place in a conventional military campaign - as opposed to the kind that level cities? And as I said earlier - what about India? Or Russia? Or African nations that might sell uranium indiscriminately - all nations with "questionable" practices when it comes to nuclear research.

Now I wish nukes would fade into the past, but it doesn't seem likely. As such I think the issue should be approached with a level head, and with less panic and hypocrisy from all nations involved.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now I wish nukes would fade into the past, but it doesn't seem likely. As such I think the issue should be approached with a level head, and with less panic and hypocrisy from all nations involved.


There's not much one person can do. But! You can't forget that you are addressing the few nuclear powers in the world.

less panic, but no less understanding that they exist. Iran should be allowed to sit at the grown up table. After all, they are the same age as the US and ISRAEL. To think less is naive. But, where is Israel in all of this?

Good, I am happy for Iran. Nuclear Energy is such a nice thing. Sucks that they want to shut down our Plants in Germany. I also agree with the President. They certainly have the right to have Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes. Shame on the Western "free" (right...haha) World for not wanting to grant it.

Capt> Israel does not OFFICIALLY have nucler weapons.

The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny that it has a nuclear weapon program, and has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East".
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011

Israel is one of three sovereign nation-states not to sign or ratify the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the other two being India and Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm

I know, they haven't "officially" announced they have the weapons, but we all know they do. I'm sure Iran knows they do. At least Iran has the guts to admit it. And I wonder where Israel got those weapons?

Capt> Yeah, don't we all?...

This is serious and bad. I heard somone is planning to plant a nuke somwhere. This isn't good....

Originally posted by Hostage
This is serious and bad. I heard somone is planning to plant a nuke somwhere. This isn't good....

Someone as in who? Where do you have your information from?

I think we've found Bin Laden's right-hand man. Welcome to the Internet, Mr. Bin Laden's Right-Hand Man!

Originally posted by Hostage
This is serious and bad. I heard somone is planning to plant a nuke somwhere. This isn't good.... They're always saying that...Though so far, so good....What I've heard is that they want to posion the Great Lakes water supply....

I heard camel droppings are going to be planted in all the Little Debbie cakes going into circulation in June.

Originally posted by botankus
I heard camel droppings are going to be planted in all the Little Debbie cakes going into circulation in June. Nooooo say it's not true......The anniversary of my birth?........I better call Hostess and warn them....

I heard they want to poison all the animal feed too.........

I've heard they sent killer misquotes over here too.....What's that disease called again..?????.......I forget

Originally posted by debbiejo
Nooooo say it's not true......The anniversary of my birth?........
June 15th, to be exact. The snack food name and date of the attack are no coincidence. This is bigger than the Conspiracy Thread.

Originally posted by botankus
June 15th, to be exact. The snack food name and date of the attack are no coincidence. This is bigger than the Conspiracy Thread. Ok, you've caught me.......I am not one of you.........I'm a plant... arabia
Just don't smoke me...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Ok, you've caught me.......I am not one of you.........I'm a plant... arabia
Just don't smoke me...

I knew it!!!