IRAN - What would you do? by Jongsstraw

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I have little doubt that what we're doing with Iran is the same thing the Reagan White House did with Pakistan: Blather on incessantly about how "we won't allow this to happen", all the while turning a blind eye (and occasionally even giving tacit support and aid) to their activities, so long as they claim to be helping our efforts in the area. With Pakistan, it was their alleged "help" equipping the Mujahideen against the Soviets. With Iran, it's their help against Iraq, and possibly against the Taliban.

Quietly letting them acquire nuclear weapons while feigning outrage about it in the press is the price we pay for their "help". If you ask me, we're paying far too much, but I have my doubts that we can really STOP Iran from getting nukes if they really want 'em. Seems a waste to build their own, though, since they could likely buy 'em for a whole lot less from some other cash-strapped nation (I'm lookin' at you, Pakistan. And Russia. And Georgia. And Belarus. And so on...)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:48 AM

PARTICIPANT

Australia is next

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:06 AM

Kwko, isn't there a significant difference between Iran of today versus Pakistan of 30 years ago? The President of Iran and the religious mullahs are Holocaust deniers. They call for Jihad against the West. They have threatened time and again to wipe Israel off the map. They have also threatened all Western nations. They have armed and trained militias in Lebanon and Palestine. They also pose a big security threat to friendly-to-the-US Arab countries. I do not recall Pakistan being in the same category as that.

So I'm wondering what people here would do if they were the President. It may come down one day to a question of life and death of the civilized world. What are you going to do as President? That is the question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:35 AM

Ya wait, ya talk , ya try to discourage them, even though ya now it won't work.

They won't be a threat to the USA, the real USA, the ( continental) USA, for quite a few years. Yes, they can be a threat to US interests and activities in the Middle East, and can thwart our actions in that area, and could attack our embassies and facilities in other countries. But that raises the question of whether we should be in those countries or not, whether we have a right to meddle ( River's word, remember?)there. And it raises the question of our relationship with those other countries, and of Iran's relationship with them. If they bomb the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, and kill a million Saudis, will the Saudi government not clobber them?. Or will the Saudis cheer, glad of the price but happy to see Americans killed?

And yes, they will be a very real threat to Israel, but the Israelis are quite capable of taking care of themselves. And if we get that 3 AM call from Tel Aviv, the only answer is, " Do what you gotta do."

Not sayin' they won't be able to kill lots of folks, not even sayin' they won't do it, just that the US is big enough, strong enough, to take it and give it back 1000 times over.

Only other option is to build a mock city in the Arizona desert, with mosques, and invite some Iranian diplomats to be nearby while we set off a 100 megatonner ,then remind them that we have lots of those, and put them on the phone to Tehran.

I think I know what their future intentions are, but you can't act on that. You have to wait until they actually do something.

America cannot, morally, be the world's only policeman, not without conquering and ruling the entire place. If the other local folks don't want to stop Iran, which is a bigger threat to any of them, it's not our job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:

So I'm wondering what people here would do if they were the President. It may come down one day to a question of life and death of the civilized world. What are you going to do as President? That is the question.

First thing I'd want to know is: "what do they want?" And by that I mean in all aspects, not just materials - at the core of their world image, what are the Iranian PTB looking for?
What do we have that they want?
Then I want to know what mutual allies we might have and what they could use. And then I want to know who their direct enemies are... etc etc.
I want to know what all the levers are first.
Threats, sanctions, those seem to backfire and get the opposite response, so I'd rather do some good ole Old World Bazaar trading and haggling if I can.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:48 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Congrats! You're the President. What do you do to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions? How do you handle Iran's defiance to the world?
Blockade?
Sanctions?
Attack?
Nothing?

The best option is to embargo gasoline shipments. Despite their large amount of oil, Iran has no refining capacity. This would cause the immediate collapse of their economy. Military action would be limited to sinking the Iranian Navy, destroying their Air Force, and bombing their surface to surface missile bases using our stealth aircraft. Losses would be minimal on our side.

That was the best option, but my own option would be different.

What would I do? I would assist Iran. They want nuclear weapons, I say why not help them out. Seems that the best way to teach someone something is to demonstrate it for them. Naturally we'd need to do the demonstration at their nuclear facility, so they can best monitor the process. A mid-sized device, say 50 kilotons, detonated right on top of their nuclear facility should teach them everything they need to learn...if not, I'd be perfectly willing to schedule as many additional demonstrations as they need.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Ya wait, ya talk , ya try to discourage them, even though ya now it won't work.

They won't be a threat to the USA, the real USA, the ( continental) USA, for quite a few years. Yes, they can be a threat to US interests and activities in the Middle East, and can thwart our actions in that area, and could attack our embassies and facilities in other countries. But that raises the question of whether we should be in those countries or not, whether we have a right to meddle ( River's word, remember?)there. And it raises the question of our relationship with those other countries, and of Iran's relationship with them. If they bomb the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, and kill a million Saudis, will the Saudi government not clobber them?. Or will the Saudis cheer, glad of the price but happy to see Americans killed?

And yes, they will be a very real threat to Israel, but the Israelis are quite capable of taking care of themselves. And if we get that 3 AM call from Tel Aviv, the only answer is, " Do what you gotta do."

Not sayin' they won't be able to kill lots of folks, not even sayin' they won't do it, just that the US is big enough, strong enough, to take it and give it back 1000 times over.

Only other option is to build a mock city in the Arizona desert, with mosques, and invite some Iranian diplomats to be nearby while we set off a 100 megatonner ,then remind them that we have lots of those, and put them on the phone to Tehran.

I think I know what their future intentions are, but you can't act on that. You have to wait until they actually do something.

America cannot, morally, be the world's only policeman, not without conquering and ruling the entire place. If the other local folks don't want to stop Iran, which is a bigger threat to any of them, it's not our job.

We seem to be the only power that does consistently stand up for these things. I grew up all my life kind of proud of that heritage, but one does have to temper that attitude in the face of the reality of today's world. European apathy has historically proven that "evil", for lack of a better word, cannot be stopped by appeasement. Lack of action in the early stages will lead to a larger, broader, and higher deadly toll in the inevitable aftermath of a final conflict. It always has, but maybe in this case it will not.

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

So I'm wondering what people here would do if they were the President. It may come down one day to a question of life and death of the civilized world. What are you going to do as President? That is the question.

First thing I'd want to know is: "what do they want?" And by that I mean in all aspects, not just materials - at the core of their world image, what are the Iranian PTB looking for?
What do we have that they want?
Then I want to know what mutual allies we might have and what they could use. And then I want to know who their direct enemies are... etc etc.
I want to know what all the levers are first.
Threats, sanctions, those seem to backfire and get the opposite response, so I'd rather do some good ole Old World Bazaar trading and haggling if I can.

Your reasoning is sound, but have you ever heard them wanting anything other than the death of Western civilization? If they were to say for example....America get out of the Middle East totally, and we will cease terror activities, I would certainly give that a try. Then you risk trusting them not to attack throughout the Middle East once we're all out. I hate the whole f'ing Middle East. I remember doing a 5th grade school project on Middle East conflicts...that was back in 1964!...nothing has really changed, only gotten worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

My answer ?

Not a goddamn thing - it ain't our country, and we've no essential "right" to tell them what to do, period.

We can make suggestions, but I doubt it would accomplish much, since when they make suggestions to *US* we interpret them as threats and throw a hissy fit, so unless they actually, yanno, invade us, which I don't see happenin, we should shut up, sit down and eat at our own damn table for once.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:49 AM

Quote:

The best option is to embargo gasoline shipments. Despite their large amount of oil, Iran has no refining capacity. This would cause the immediate collapse of their economy. Military action would be limited to sinking the Iranian Navy, destroying their Air Force, and bombing their surface to surface missile bases using our stealth aircraft. Losses would be minimal on our side.

That strategy certainly worked in Iraq!

Oh, wait.

Seems you haven't learned a single thing since March 2003. "It'll be easy, and it won't cost us a penny! There's no WAY this could go wrong!"

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:51 AM

Quote:
I hate the whole f'ing Middle East.

Starting from a position of hate seems no better than what you accuse Iran of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:15 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

I think Iran needs to have nukes, it will settle the entire region down. Having nukes and using them are two entirely different things, this will provide counter balance to Israels policy of destabilizing anyone they can't control.

If I were President, and I had a 3 am call from Israel... I'd say hey fine, don't involve us, don't cross any territory under our control and it is none of our business... then the next call would be to alert the airforce in Iraq, and NATO to shoot down anybody violating that airspace.

Same goes for Iran...

I think all the media hype and sanction regimes and other associated bullshit has nothing to do with Nukes at all, and will not stop a determined effort anyway ( look at North Korea )

Lets just put an end to the sound bytes and the we're so tough speechs and quit making enemies. As much as Iran has talked tough, so has both the West, and Israel... so let it drop... maybe without the outside bluster and threats moderates in all the involved countrys will have more room to move, and tensions will decrease.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

"Por nada."
Always have been, probably always will be, pro-Israel. It may by only 60- 40, or, Hell, 51-49, but they're still the best choice.
Who danced in the streets on 9-12-01 ? vs. who offered to send Search and Rescue teams? and that's only the latest defining moment to ask that question about.
And the threat to them IS real. We have no duty to help them in advance, but if they feel the need to take some action, we do have a responsibility to support them. Not absolutely, and not without criticism, but ultimately, to support them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:41 AM

The region is unsettled due to different tribal conflicts and the way tribes have been grouped into ridiculous nonsensical countries through the efforts of people who don't have the slightest clue.

The first thing to do is to understand these conflicts. For one, you should never, ever call an Iranian an Arab. Arabs invaded Iran way back in the 10th century and Iranians haven't ever quite gotten over it. Hence the current anti-semitism you see now. Which is not NECESSARILY due to Judaism, but since right now it's convenient for their government to blame much of the region's unsettledness on the presence of Isreal, well... In any case, it's propaganda to gain the support of followers easily manipulated through religion.

I doubt Iran would ever overtly attack Isreal, even with nuclear weapons. They'd still probably get their asses kicked... Assuming Isreal can hold onto its allies, support is increasingly diminishing because of Isreal's own extreme actions. Even so.

One thing I will say in Isreal's favour is that if they haven't used a nuclear weapon, they probably aren't ever going to. Though they'll certainly use other horrific chemical warfare.

The question is if Iran knows this, I think they do. I see this situation as similar to India and Pakistan, when both of them got nukes. I don't think any country is dumb enough to (officially) launch a nuclear missile into another country, which is why India and Pakistan have mostly been in a sort of cold-war sort of stalemate for the past decade.

Proxy groups like terrorist cells, on the other hand, maybe not so much.

So the second thing you do is cut off FBI/CIA support into the drug trade and terrorist cells. I'm going to operate on the assumption here that the FBI and CIA are involved with these cells ONLY in the sense of undercover operations to route out the most dangerous terrorists. I have my doubts that's the case and that terrorist cells are being used internally for manipulation of the public back in America, but maybe that's irrelevant for right now. You cut off the drug money to these terrorist cells (maybe also by legalizing some drugs?), put a stop to the black market weapon and guns trade to the Middle East, and you've done a lot right there to starve these cells.

How do you stop some douchebag got his grubby hands on a nuke you don't want him? You don't send in an army, you send in a team. Frankly, I've been appalled by how unsuccessful we've been at this in the last few decades despite far superior technology, and it makes me wonder if it isn't on purpose.

So, like Frem, I'd say there's really not a whole lot here you can do to discourage Iran, kind of like with North Korea, because ultimately they can argue that they're enriching uranium for energy needs, which means proposing an aggressive response in the international community is humped.

But you can do stuff about the terrorist cells, and a lot more efficiently than sending in the troops.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Kwko, isn't there a significant difference between Iran of today versus Pakistan of 30 years ago?

Is there? What is the "significant difference"?

Quote:
The President of Iran and the religious mullahs are Holocaust deniers.

Well, Ahmedinejad is a denier, but so far as I've heard, the mullahs and the Ayatollah aren't. And Ahmedinejad is a figurehead; the real power in Iran isn't his.

Quote:
They call for Jihad against the West.

So? We (or in this case, Bush) called for "a crusade" against Islam. Is it somehow better when it's YOUR holy war?

Quote:

They have threatened time and again to wipe Israel off the map.

No they haven't. That was a mistranslation that the right-wing media grabbed onto and ran with. Ahmedinejad never said it. What he SAID was that he thought Israel would be lost to the pages of history. Quite a different thing. If I say the Cold War will be consumed by the dust of history, that's not QUITE the same thing as saying that we'll be launching all our missiles in five minutes, is it? Do you see the subtle difference?

Quote:
They have also threatened all Western nations.

No more than "all Western nations" have threatened them. By the way, WE threatened every nation on Earth after 9/11, when "we" (in this case, Bush, again) said, "Either you're with us, or you're against us." That's not even a veiled threat; it's an overt one.

Quote:

They have armed and trained militias in Lebanon and Palestine.

Who hasn't?

Quote:
They also pose a big security threat to friendly-to-the-US Arab countries.

So does America. ;)

Quote:
So I'm wondering what people here would do if they were the President. It may come down one day to a question of life and death of the civilized world. What are you going to do as President? That is the question.

That's being more than just a little bit hyperbolic and melodramatic, isn't it? You - and many others, including "Hero" - seem to have this simplistic notion that the very first thing any nation would do upon acquiring a nuclear bomb would be to detonate it above one of their "enemy's" cities. Need I remind you that in the history of the world, there is only one nation to have ever taken that step? I'm not arguing whether it was the right thing to do at the time or not; I'm just pointing out that it hardly gives us anything like the moral high ground you seem to think we have.

I tend to think of Iranians (and North Koreans, for that matter) as human beings, no more intent on their own immediate destruction than most of the human race is. You seem to think that the very first action they would take would be to attack someone with a vastly superior nuclear arsenal, whether that be us or Israel, or someone else in the area. I take the view that that's just not going to happen. Why? Because such an action IMMEDIATELY results in your entire nation, your people, your history and culture, and every speck of what you are or what you wanted to be, will be gone, forever. Launch one single warhead against Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, and see how that goes. I triple-dog dare ya. :) Try it with Denver or Boston, even. Heck, we're a forgiving bunch, right?

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you seem to have bought into this insane notion you're being sold by the right, that everybody who isn't a god-fearing American is somehow completely inhuman and incapable of logic, and therefore can't be talked to or negotiated with, or empathized with. And I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong. Even Reagan knew better than that. (That's why he dealt with the Iranians, remember.)

So, I'm the President, eh? Okay, here's my address to Iran:

"People of Iran: We understand your desire to be seen as a major player on the global stage, and we welcome you. You are pursuing nuclear weapons, as is your right as a sovereign nation, much as it may pain the rest of the world to admit it. But know this, and understand it clearly: any nuclear detonation, any "accident" on foreign soil, any nuclear attack on any ally of the United States, will be taken as an attack on the United States itself, and will be responded to not just in kind, but repaid thousandfold. If any Iranian nuclear device or so-called 'dirty bomb' detonates or is released anywhere on Earth, the nation of Iran will cease to exist within the hour. With power comes responsibility; we intend to hold you responsible for the power you seek."

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 9:52 AM

Ehm... I dunno, Kwicko, to welcome someone while at the same time threatening immediate destruction if they step over a line doesn't exactly seem to work well with nations like Iran and Korea, who already see everything we say and do as a threat. I'd rework your speech a little bit and specifically address terrorists. Proxy groups operating for governments with nukes are the most likely source of an actual nuclear detonation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Kwko, isn't there a significant difference between Iran of today versus Pakistan of 30 years ago?

Is there? What is the "significant difference"?

Quote:
The President of Iran and the religious mullahs are Holocaust deniers.

Well, Ahmedinejad is a denier, but so far as I've heard, the mullahs and the Ayatollah aren't. And Ahmedinejad is a figurehead; the real power in Iran isn't his.

Quote:
They call for Jihad against the West.

So? We (or in this case, Bush) called for "a crusade" against Islam. Is it somehow better when it's YOUR holy war?

Quote:

They have threatened time and again to wipe Israel off the map.

No they haven't. That was a mistranslation that the right-wing media grabbed onto and ran with. Ahmedinejad never said it. What he SAID was that he thought Israel would be lost to the pages of history. Quite a different thing. If I say the Cold War will be consumed by the dust of history, that's not QUITE the same thing as saying that we'll be launching all our missiles in five minutes, is it? Do you see the subtle difference?

Quote:
They have also threatened all Western nations.

No more than "all Western nations" have threatened them. By the way, WE threatened every nation on Earth after 9/11, when "we" (in this case, Bush, again) said, "Either you're with us, or you're against us." That's not even a veiled threat; it's an overt one.

Quote:

They have armed and trained militias in Lebanon and Palestine.

Who hasn't?

Quote:
They also pose a big security threat to friendly-to-the-US Arab countries.

So does America. ;)

Quote:
So I'm wondering what people here would do if they were the President. It may come down one day to a question of life and death of the civilized world. What are you going to do as President? That is the question.

That's being more than just a little bit hyperbolic and melodramatic, isn't it? You - and many others, including "Hero" - seem to have this simplistic notion that the very first thing any nation would do upon acquiring a nuclear bomb would be to detonate it above one of their "enemy's" cities. Need I remind you that in the history of the world, there is only one nation to have ever taken that step? I'm not arguing whether it was the right thing to do at the time or not; I'm just pointing out that it hardly gives us anything like the moral high ground you seem to think we have.

I tend to think of Iranians (and North Koreans, for that matter) as human beings, no more intent on their own immediate destruction than most of the human race is. You seem to think that the very first action they would take would be to attack someone with a vastly superior nuclear arsenal, whether that be us or Israel, or someone else in the area. I take the view that that's just not going to happen. Why? Because such an action IMMEDIATELY results in your entire nation, your people, your history and culture, and every speck of what you are or what you wanted to be, will be gone, forever. Launch one single warhead against Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, and see how that goes. I triple-dog dare ya. :) Try it with Denver or Boston, even. Heck, we're a forgiving bunch, right?

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you seem to have bought into this insane notion you're being sold by the right, that everybody who isn't a god-fearing American is somehow completely inhuman and incapable of logic, and therefore can't be talked to or negotiated with, or empathized with. And I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong. Even Reagan knew better than that. (That's why he dealt with the Iranians, remember.)

So, I'm the President, eh? Okay, here's my address to Iran:

"People of Iran: We understand your desire to be seen as a major player on the global stage, and we welcome you. You are pursuing nuclear weapons, as is your right as a sovereign nation, much as it may pain the rest of the world to admit it. But know this, and understand it clearly: any nuclear detonation, any "accident" on foreign soil, any nuclear attack on any ally of the United States, will be taken as an attack on the United States itself, and will be responded to not just in kind, but repaid thousandfold. If any Iranian nuclear device or so-called 'dirty bomb' detonates or is released anywhere on Earth, the nation of Iran will cease to exist within the hour. With power comes responsibility; we intend to hold you responsible for the power you seek."

I'm not going to argue with you line by line, as that would be too much fun for you. I actually find much logic in your post. I suppose it all boils down to 2 things: can you trust them enough not to detonate a device somewhere, or pass off a device to some terrorists to detonate somewhere - and - with the knowledge that they believe in the glory of suicide for a martyr's cause, how can they be allowed a first strike capability? How could you live with yourself over the consequences? You have no problem describing and treating Iranians as nice folks, and I'm sure they are. But the fanatical Jihadists are running the country, and have recently violently suppressed marches for some freedom from their own people. If they will shoot a young Iranian girl in the head in the street, do you think they'd hesitate to do far worse to their enemies? You have no problem with drawing moral equivalencies between America and Iran, and that is your right, although I would protest that comparison with every breath in my body until the day I die. Your logic was completely accurate if you were descibing the former Cold War with USSR. Mutually-assured destruction kept both side's heads in check for 50+ years. With these Islamists however, we are dealing with a different set of rules in my opinion. Perhaps TV personalities have whipped-up some frenzied fear on this subject; I do not deny that. I like the speech you would make to Iran if you were President. Again, how could rational people not get the message. Only the insane and irrational would not care much about any words.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 10:16 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I actually find much logic in your post. I suppose it all boils down to 2 things: can you trust them enough not to detonate a device somewhere, or pass off a device to some terrorists to detonate somewhere - and - with the knowledge that they believe in the glory of suicide for a martyr's cause, how can they be allowed a first strike capability? How could you live with yourself over the consequences? You have no problem describing and treating Iranians as nice folks, and I'm sure they are. But the fanatical Jihadists are running the country, and have recently violently suppressed marches for some freedom from their own people. If they will shoot a young Iranian girl in the head in the street, do you think they'd hesitate to do far worse to their enemies? You have no problem with drawing moral equivalencies between America and Iran, and that is your right, although I would protest that comparison with every breath in my body until the day I die. Your logic was completely accurate if you were descibing the former Cold War with USSR. Mutually-assured destruction kept both side's heads in check for 50+ years. With these Islamists however, we are dealing with a different set of rules in my opinion. Perhaps TV personalities have whipped-up some frenzied fear on this subject; I do not deny that. I like the speech you would make to Iran if you were President. Again, how could rational people not get the message. Only the insane and irrational would not care much about any words.

You make a lot of good points Jongs. Bottom line, F*CK NO, I do not trust them. And this: "Only the insane and irrational would not care much about any words" is why I would find something of value to trade for compliance. Our words only incite and offend. I don't anyone posting thinks sanctions or threats will work.
Gino suggested - "Lets just put an end to the sound bytes and the we're so tough speechs and quit making enemies. As much as Iran has talked tough, so has both the West, and Israel... so let it drop... maybe without the outside bluster and threats moderates in all the involved countrys will have more room to move, and tensions will decrease."
It's not what they expect, sometimes that throws people off enough t get them to think and act differently.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 11:55 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Leave Iran the fuck alone, and let them sell us cheap oil. That's all they ever wanted to do.

Back in 2005 gas was 99-cents a gallon.

In many nations gas is 5-cents a gallon...

Besides Iran is full of jews. So you're an anti-Semite if you want to kill Iranians.

Even Iran's president is jewish.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahm
adinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

Who sold Iran the nuke junk? Cheney and Rummy. Just like in North Korea.

I do support USA selling nuke bombs to Iran to nuke Israel. Kill all the "jews", let their jew god Molech sort em out. REMEMBER USS LIBERTY! Remember Remember 11 September. They killed Jesus and his disciples too. They stole $25-Trillion by extorting Congress with martial law. They steal EVERY PENNY PAID IN FED INCOME TAXES.

Sing it with me:

KILL THE JEWS!
KILL THE JEWS!
KILL THE JEWS!

Quote:
"Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
-Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to Jonathan Pollard (convicted traitor and spy in USA) upon exiting Pollard's jail cell

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

"The FBI has issued a BOLO on suspected terrorists driving a white delivery van from New York City to the Mexican border. The suspects are using Israeli passports. They are armed and dangerous."
-Knox County TN Emergency 911 Dispatch, Sept 11, 2001, 11am EST
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm

The first terrorist bombers arrested in USA on 9/11/2001 were Israeli Mossad says Fox News. There were over 500 of them, infiltrating US military bases and all police agencies. They were dressed as Muslims, "dancing in happiness" while watching and videotaping the World Trade Center explode. All were allowed to leave USA, and none were tortured to confess at Gitmo.
youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

14 Israeli "art students" were living in World Trade Center Towers with forged Construction Passes, connection to Mossad spy ring infiltrating every US military base and police agency in USA, arrested and deported from USA after 9/11/2001:
http://www.rense.com/general87/14_1.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=edxYE9sZ5WI

Israel police 'arrest Mossad spy on training exercise' planting car bomb
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8377746.stm

2 Israeli Mossad agents were arrested with explosive residue in their white truck in Erwin TN nuke plant.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7238

Israel stole 400 nukes from USA incl ORNL. Now Israel runs security for all nuke factories in USA.

"Intelligence chatter from two agencies, Israel Mossad and one other, discussed their desire to nuke nine US cities in 2009, 'to teach America a lesson'. Within days of our broadcasts, Newsmax came out with a story saying the same thing, but blaming AllCIAduh, er, Al Qaeda."
-Dr. Cass Ingram, The Power Hour radio show, 1470 am Alcoa TN, 3 Feb 2009

Nuclear Attacks on 7 U.S. Cities in 2009: New York, Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Miami, Boston, Houston, and Los Angeles, says Bush PR firm Newsmax
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/

Jews did 9/11
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

Human sacrifice to jew god Molech at kosher Bohemian Grove in Monto Rio California

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 12:53 PM

I think my brain just had an aneurysm.

"Don't kill Iranians, let them sell us cheap oil, but all Iranians are jews, and kill all jews?"

WHAT.

Although, I have heard that story about the Ahmedinejad having changed his name to run for election, and that he might have been jewish. Much of Iran still hates Semites, there's a bunch of different tribes but the majority tribe is very much hostile. They do have plenty of jewish people, I think particularly towards the north?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 12:57 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

who offered to send Search and Rescue teams? and that's only the latest defining moment to ask that question about.
And the threat to them IS real. We have no duty to help them in advance, but if they feel the need to take some action, we do have a responsibility to support them. Not absolutely, and not without criticism, but ultimately, to support them.

Castro offer medical support and supplys after Katrina...

so are you pro Cuba?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 1:06 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "- Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

Well , so much for the 2 wars already in progress...Sure , what this country really needs right now is yet another one...NOT !

Do it for the world...And , our abbreviated 'posterity'...

Sure .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 1:15 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Another approach would be to try and declare through the UN the entire area to be a nuclear weapon free zone.

Iran might just agree, provided than the plan includes disarming Israel ( and that they are subject to all the same treatys and provisions )

As well as a pledge, ( perhaps also subject to random international inspection ) that no foreign power will transit or deploy such weapons in the area... including the US Navy.

Also Kwicko, your pledge to nuke Iran would be better if you don't call them out by name, maybe it would be better to say " If any country conducts a first strike using nuclear arms, that country will receive an immediate response from the US " and perhaps somehow make it clear that includes Israel as well.

edit. maybe include the Russians in this, Putin is much more believable credibilty wise

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:

Well , so much for the 2 wars already in progress...Sure , what this country really needs right now is yet another one...NOT !

On that we seem to be in complete agreement.

I'd like to hear proposals for HOW we're supposed to pay for any Iran war before we start laying out invasion plans.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

This is a non-starter. We know it. Iran knows it. As I said above, if we aren't outright HELPING them (behind the scenes, of course, and oh so deniably), we're sure as hell turning a bit of a blind eye to it, because we know, and they KNOW we know, that we're not going to do much of shit about it. We're not in a position to. And sanctions are pretty much useless, because China is one of Iran's main trading partners, and doesn't really give a flip whether Iran gets a nuclear weapon or not, and isn't about to turn down their money in the meantime.

My fearless prediction? Iran gets the bomb within five years, and we don't nuke them and they don't nuke anyone. And life goes on.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 1:37 PM

Quote:
Another approach would be to try and declare through the UN the entire area to be a nuclear weapon free zone.

Iran might just agree, provided than the plan includes disarming Israel ( and that they are subject to all the same treatys and provisions )

As well as a pledge, ( perhaps also subject to random international inspection ) that no foreign power will transit or deploy such weapons in the area... including the US Navy.

Ooh, nice one. I'd actually like to see the US start decommissioning its nuclear arsenal myself, it'd be a good show of trust that might convince the rest of the world to begin to disarm. Most nations who have nukes or want them do so because they're US allies or because they're intimidated by all the US nukes.

Besides, if we're that concerned about people taking advantage, we don't have to do it all at once.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 3:11 PM

DREAMTROVE

Iran is not about to go in for Jihad, it's a civilized country, and it has a right to self determination, I have to say Frem is so on target I wonder sometimes why I even post.

If we want them to not have nukes, they hey, nuclear disarmament begins at home. Also, here's a novel idea, instead of investing trillions in war, we could invest some cash in a system that actually stops incoming missiles, perhaps directly after lunch. Err... I mean "launch." That would be a disincentive to have nukes: If someone could intercept them on launch. Ouch.

But, no, it's their business, they elected their govt, which they seem happy with. And why not? It's not *them* who are bogged down in a pointless endless war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:

Iran is not about to go in for Jihad, it's a civilized country, and it has a right to self determination, I have to say Frem is so on target I wonder sometimes why I even post.

Dream - You're right, of course. To say that "they" are a bunch of Jihadis (or Mujahideen) is to lump all of a nation into one belief. It's like saying that "we" are a christian nation. We're not, and we're not a nation of bible-thumping backwards fundamentalists, any more than Iran is. There ARE some bad people there, and there ARE some bad people holding power, but that can be said here as well. Clinton was a disaster according to some, and Bush was a disaster according to every single person on the planet (except for MAYBE "Hero"), yet here they were, fingers on The Button, and yet somehow we manage to still be here, unnuked and more or less intact. How can that be?

So let 'em have their nukes. Let 'em know that THEY are completely, 100% responsible for everything that happens with those nukes. (I rather highly doubt that you're going to get Israel to dismantle its nuclear program, no matter how vociferously they might insist that no one else in the region be allowed parity.)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Mike,

yes, and one more point that I want to make very clearly, and my apologies for using words like "civilized" because it could cast an unintended comparison:

Iran is a first world nation. People don't get that. When we talk about Afghanistan, it's like talking about Somalia: Fascinating people, culture, and interesting problems that need solving, one way or another; but no one is ever going to be under the illusion that they are a united people under one system as a solid nation state.

When I made the comment in a recent thread about my friend saying that the Ayatollah was doing a good job of keeping a lid on the religious nutcases, I thought it was thought-provoking, and not the perspective I would have thought, but it's like a catholic country, they have a religious leader, and he really mediates between the clergy and their flock, and the progressive society, keeping the burqas at bay as it were.

But there's more things going on here:

In Afghanistan or even Pakistan or Iraq, or Arabian peninsular countries, a group of dissidents might raise a small army and attack a perceived threat, the way palestinian groups sometimes do. If someone in Iran wer to try to do that, they would be arrested for regular run of the mill crime. I remember a quote from the president regarding "political prisoners" in eastern Iran, and he said something to the effect of "yes, we had some political differences: They were in possession of 5 kilos of cocaine with intent to distribute, and three of them were wanted in connection with an attack on a school, so yes, I disagree with these people." But of course, they do have courts, etc.

But also, there are other factors to consider. We're not talking about a nation that has a nuclear program because someone sold them nukes on the black market, but because they have nuclear engineers capable of designing nukes.

Some details

GDP of some countries of more or less similar size

Spain $1.6 Trillion
Mexico $1.09 Trillion
Iran $385 billion
Ukraine $180 Billion
Congo $11.63 billion
Afghanistan $10 billion

# of universities students
Spain 1.5 million (of 46 million)
Mexico 2.3 million (of 111 million)
Iran 3.5 million (of 74 million)
Ukraine 2.5 million (of 46 million)
Congo 10 thousand? (of 66 million)
Afghanistan 5 thousand? (of 28 million)

Couldn't find good figures on students for the last two, those came from random pages. Any more accurate figures appreciated.

Most popular topics of study in Iran

1. Chemistry
2. Medicine
3. Engineering
4. Physics

Iran ranks first in number of engineers, second is Germany. Sobering, eh?

That said, there are other factors to take into consideration. The last time the US invaded a sovereign power was earlier this year, when we crossed into Pakistan. The last time Iran did, IIRC, it was Sparta, and we're still making movies about it ;)

And, of course, no discussion of "the nuclear threat" can be complete without a list of who has used atomic weapons against whom, but oh, we already know that.

So yes you're correct, both our country and theirs has a vocal religious extremist minority, but they're not about to take over the country, in spite of what it may look like: They're being placated by their govts, just as our presidents always have to thump the bible and tout their loyalty to God. Some of us want to say: Hey. God didn't elect you. We did. Ah well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 3:05 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Iran ranks first in number of engineers, second is Germany. Sobering, eh?

They also own a bunch of Denny's restaurants.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 3:14 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think my brain just had an aneurysm.

"Don't kill Iranians, let them sell us cheap oil, but all Iranians are jews, and kill all jews?"

WHAT.

Although, I have heard that story about the Ahmedinejad having changed his name to run for election, and that he might have been jewish. Much of Iran still hates Semites, there's a bunch of different tribes but the majority tribe is very much hostile. They do have plenty of jewish people, I think particularly towards the north?

As a soldier, nothing is more infuriating than to hear non-soldiers say "We need to invade __________ nation and kill millions of men, women and children, even when it kills 10,000s of men and women and disables 100,000s in the US military, and since we cannot afford to pay 1 penny due to the national debt, we must borrow every penny for war from foreign nations, with a debt we can never afford to pay back, even when it quadruples the price of oil and makes enemies out of allies who hate America, and we must fight all wars for Israel because they can't defend themselves with the trillion dollars in weapons we gave them."

Every person who wants war should be instantly deported to the war zone and handed a rifle, with 5 bullets (max # bullets allowed for British soldiers in Afghanistan, no body armor allowed).

Ahmadinejad's passport shows that his family's previous name was Jewish
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahm
adinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html
www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_iran_president_ma
hmoud_ahmadinejad_is_secretly__jewish.html

Let's review the Iranian embassy fiasco. CIA director George Bush Sr was fired by President Jimmy Carter. Bush told Carter he vowed revenge. According to the US embassy staff, Bush perped treason by contracting with Iran as a private citizen to NOT release the hostages (and perhaps to seize the hostages to begin with via Bush's confessed "October Surprise"). Lt Col Oliver North led and sabotaged the "rescue" mission by US Marine helicopters, which all crashed in the desert in a sandstorm, with US troops burned to crispy critters. This cost Carter the election of 1980 (combined with the private "Federal" Reserve Banksters raising interest rates to 20% prime rate). The hostages were released the exact second that Bush Sr and Reagan were inaugerated. Reagan/Bush then continued doing business with Iran, giving/selling them weapons in Iran-Contra, which included CIA importing cocaine (and heroin) into USA and CIA perping terror bombings. CIA also put Ayatolla Khomeini into power, since radical Muslims are much more useful to the NWO than moderate secular leaders (like Saddam Hussein).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 4:44 AM

What exactly does Ahmedinejad question about the holocaust? From his comments there, I actually don't interpret them as meaning that he thinks the holocaust never happened, but rather that the holocaust has been expanded into a sort of legendary status, that Israel is using as justification for some of their more extreme actions.

I'm thinking that there may be a lot of mistranslation going on here, and some of it malicious to incite ire and provoke aggression from other UN representatives/their countries.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

who offered to send Search and Rescue teams? and that's only the latest defining moment to ask that question about.
And the threat to them IS real. We have no duty to help them in advance, but if they feel the need to take some action, we do have a responsibility to support them. Not absolutely, and not without criticism, but ultimately, to support them.

Castro offer medical support and supplys after Katrina...

so are you pro Cuba?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

Nice job of distorting what I posted. You must have worked extra hard to edit a quote within a quote.

What Kwicko posted, of what I posted was:

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

"Por nada."
Always have been, probably always will be, pro-Israel. It may by only 60- 40, or, Hell, 51-49, but they're still the best choice.
Who danced in the streets on 9-12-01 ? vs. who offered to send Search and Rescue teams? and that's only the latest defining moment to ask that question about.

As to my opinion of CUBA , it's irrelevant in this thread about IRAN.

BTW, nobody needs to ask about your opinion- it's obvious from your distortion that you are *P*R*O* - *I*R*A*N*

How soon will your imam, down at your mosque, give your sleeper cell orders to kill Americans and other Christians?

In the now-ancient words of Star Trek: " What the Klingon has said is unimportant and we do not hear his words"-- " Watch out, Jim, I just called the Klingon a liar."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 7:22 AM

Quote:
BTW, nobody needs to ask about your opinion- it's obvious from your distortion that you are *P*R*O* - *I*R*A*N*

How soon will your imam, down at your mosque, give your sleeper cell orders to kill Americans and other Christians?

That is an unwarranted accusation, both in that being Pro-Iran automatically means being Muslim AND being a terrorist (and suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists), and also in labeling a lack of hostility towards Iran as "pro-Iran."

Granted Gino's jab wasn't on topic though. Cuba offering aid after a hurricane really isn't the same animal as would be Americans offering aid to Israel, since one is military action and one is humanitarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

In the now-ancient words of Star Trek: " What the Klingon has said is unimportant and we do not hear his words"-- " Watch out, Jim, I just called the Klingon a liar."

Either you accessed IMDB quotes, or you have some great memory to come up with that line from Star Trek. The Klingon in question was played by Tige Andrews, who later went on to do the Mod Squad tv series. Friday's Child, a great episode that featured the lovely Julie Newmar, is one of my personal favorites.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

who offered to send Search and Rescue teams? and that's only the latest defining moment to ask that question about.
And the threat to them IS real. We have no duty to help them in advance, but if they feel the need to take some action, we do have a responsibility to support them. Not absolutely, and not without criticism, but ultimately, to support them.

Castro offer medical support and supplys after Katrina...

so are you pro Cuba?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

Nice job of distorting what I posted. You must have worked extra hard to edit a quote within a quote.

What Kwicko posted, of what I posted was:

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Thanks for giving a straight answer on Israel...you say they get the green light from President NOBC if they decide to attack Iran.

"Por nada."
Always have been, probably always will be, pro-Israel. It may by only 60- 40, or, Hell, 51-49, but they're still the best choice.
Who danced in the streets on 9-12-01 ? vs. who offered to send Search and Rescue teams? and that's only the latest defining moment to ask that question about.

Excuse me, but... WHAT THE FUCK?! You might want to go back and double-check yourself, because you're attributing shit to me that I didn't write and never said. Or, to put it bluntly, you're lying, and trying to claim it as "disorting" at the same time.

Might wanna look to that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 7:55 AM

Went back to check the thread Kwicko and oops, you're right, you never quoted that exchange. However, I don't think NOBC was accusing you of changing anything. What NOBC said was "here is what I originally posted, which was quoted by Kwicko (It wasn't, it was quoted by Jongstraw)."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

In the now-ancient words of Star Trek: " What the Klingon has said is unimportant and we do not hear his words"-- " Watch out, Jim, I just called the Klingon a liar."

Either you accessed IMDB quotes, or you have some great memory to come up with that line from Star Trek. The Klingon in question was played by Tige Andrews, who later went on to do the Mod Squad tv series. Friday's Child, a great episode that featured the lovely Julie Newmar, is one of my personal favorites.

" Sorry, neither..." to steal another Trek quote. That particular usage is one that I carry around in my head. A really polite way of calling someone a liar...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Excuse me, but... WHAT THE FUCK?! You might want to go back and double-check yourself, because you're attributing shit to me that I didn't write and never said. Or, to put it bluntly, you're lying, and trying to claim it as "disorting" at the same time.

Might wanna look to that.

You are, in fact , correct. I did mistakenly attribute the original quoted post to you instead of JongStraw. I had no intention of attacking him or you, merely attributing the quotes to the proper source. If in any way, I have offended you or Jong by doing this, I apologize. I surely thought I had seen your screen name associated with the post, but was wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:26 AM

Yeah, Byte - I saw that and just kinda blew up.

Sorry to all - especially NOBC.

Should I go back and edit my post to remove the more over-the-top stuff?

Now mind, some of that I'll stand behind. I'm not "pro-Iran", or "pro-Muslim" or "pro-terrorist". Frankly, it should be at least a little bit offensive that even at this stage, anyone who isn't gung-ho for bombing the living fuck out of any nation even the slightest bit browner than us, or whose people might worship a different set of beliefs, is seen as "patriotic". And opposing such behavior is seen as "un-American".

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Excuse me, but... WHAT THE FUCK?! You might want to go back and double-check yourself, because you're attributing shit to me that I didn't write and never said. Or, to put it bluntly, you're lying, and trying to claim it as "disorting" at the same time.

Might wanna look to that.

You are, in fact , correct. I did mistakenly attribute the original quoted post to you instead of JongStraw. I had no intention of attacking him or you, merely attributing the quotes to the proper source. If in any way, I have offended you or Jong by doing this, I apologize. I surely thought I had seen your screen name associated with the post, but was wrong.

Nah, we're all good. Well, we have some disagreements on Iran, it seems, but other than that, I think we're okay.

By the way, we're cross-posting, it would seem.

You mistook me for someone else, I went full attack-dog about it, things were said, apologies were made all around, and I *think* we're back where we should be.

By the way, I've gone back and edited my blow-up, so we're only discussing the misattribution.

On the other stuff, we can discuss it further, or agree to disagree.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yeah, Byte - I saw that and just kinda blew up.

Sorry to all - especially NOBC.

Should I go back and edit my post to remove the more over-the-top stuff?

Now mind, some of that I'll stand behind. I'm not "pro-Iran", or "pro-Muslim" or "pro-terrorist". Frankly, it should be at least a little bit offensive that even at this stage, anyone who isn't gung-ho for bombing the living fuck out of any nation even the slightest bit browner than us, or whose people might worship a different set of beliefs, is seen as "patriotic". And opposing such behavior is seen as "un-American".

Let it stand. Bear in mind, of course, that I was not attacking *Y*O*U*.

And that is not my opinion of foreign policy. I don't believe in bombing the living fuck out of anybody, at least not at this moment.

I do not like people distorting what I post for their own purposes. I don't mind my stuff being edited for redundancy or bad grammar, as long as my original point is expressed correctly , but to go inside a 3rd party's quote to edit and distort something I posted, that he posted correctly, is not proper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

" I will be on the Klissoura Road, at midnight, with my sabre, should you have any other need of me..." Thank you, Bernard Shaw...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Nah, we're all good. Well, we have some disagreements on Iran, it seems, but other than that, I think we're okay.

By the way, we're cross-posting, it would seem.

You mistook me for someone else, I went full attack-dog about it, things were said, apologies were made all around, and I *think* we're back where we should be.

" I will be on the Klissoura Road, at midnight, with my sabre, should you have any other need of me..." Thank you, Bernard Shaw...

Now, ummmm... you KNOW I'm a big fan of sniper rifles, right? You SURE you wanna just bring a sabre?

(And I'm just playin'. NOBC and I haven't got any real issues, far as I know)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
They also own a bunch of Denny's restaurants.

And Mini Marts, and Gas Stations, and Tobacco Shops...

All of which have provided friendly, honest service and benefit the community at large even when that community sneers at them for being the acceptable target heritage and culture of the week, even if they happen to be from some OTHER country, culture or theology - and they take it with pretty good grace, most of em, better than we would, for damn sure.

I am still very, very pissed off over what happened to the gas station on the main drag in my former township(1)

He was trying to emigrate, see - and mind you, this was a nice guy, although his wife wasn't and always naggin on him... what IS it with these guys wifes when they come over here that suddenly they become so goddamn ferocious ?

Anyhows, he had paperwork problems made harder cause english wasn't his native language and he was trying his damndest to solve them, he even asked me to look up stuff for him, cause our immigration law is a fekkin nightmare of red tape and hassle.

And then, some time when I was out on the east coast sorting out a family situation, Immigration showed up with DeptHomeSec and fucking black bagged his ass right there on main street in broad daylight, boom - just took him off and nobody said a goddamn thing - had I been there, woulda gone different maybe.

And now, that station sits empty, weeds growing up through cracked pavement, an empty shell bereft of his quick smile and sharp sounding laugh like they never existed in the first place, like HE never existed in the first place, and no one says a bloody thing.

Even more annoying is that his "competition", the american owned gas station a quarter mile up the road, had something to do with it, at least the complaint that started it - and unlike him, they are a pack of dishonest ripoff shitheels who charge several cents more and have been repeatedly fined for bulking out their fuel with waste motor oil, not meeting octane requirements and rigging the pumps to short gallons.

So I seriously advise you not to bitch to ME, about businesses owned and operated by middle easterners, cause I myself have found them more honest(2) than american business owners by a damned long swipe, right-O ?

-Frem

(1) Which has, sadly, fallen to corruption already with secret 2-minute long, closed door meetings in the middle of the night, with which they appointed a VERY corrupt cop to be in charge of their so-called police dept, such as it is with only two cops cause the rest went to prison, and one tremendously beat up, falling apart squad car since the pretty shiny one has mechanical problems that would make replacing it cheaper than trying to fix it - they got ALL that shit done including the water main and street repaving, and a break even budget, but I guess the job has corrupted them, being that their entire purpose behind that was revenue-generation by ticketing people, cause you sure as hell don't need a whole goddamn police force for a town less than a mile square with a crime rate of maybe two vandalisms and petty thefts a month.

(2) Baksheesh aside, culturally when it comes to straight up business, they ARE more honest, with an almost religious dedication to it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

as Posted by NOBC:
" I will be on the Klissoura Road, at midnight, with my sabre, should you have any other need of me..." Thank you, Bernard Shaw...

Now, ummmm... you KNOW I'm a big fan of sniper rifles, right? You SURE you wanna just bring a sabre?

(And I'm just playin'. NOBC and I haven't got any real issues, far as I know)

And Shaw's other character in the same scene has the next line: " That's a cavalryman's proposal. I'll bring a cannon."
Just playin' right back...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

labeling a lack of hostility towards Iran as "pro-Iran."

I just looked up both " pro" and "con" in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. I'm too lazy to type it all, but "pro" is defined as supporting or agreeing with, while "con" is defined as disagreeing or opposing. Neither uses the word "hostility", but a LACK of hostility would have to be part of agreeing with or supporting, and the presence of hostility could certainly be a part of opposing or disagreeing, depending on how strongly one disagrees, don't you think?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:22 AM

Quote:
I just looked up both " pro" and "con" in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. I'm too lazy to type it all, but "pro" is defined as supporting or agreeing with, while "con" is defined as disagreeing or opposing. Neither uses the word "hostility", but a LACK of hostility would have to be part of agreeing with or supporting, and the presence of hostility could certainly be a part of opposing or disagreeing, depending on how strongly one disagrees, don't you think?

I disagree with Israel's use of chemical weapons on Palestinians and their settlements of the Gaza strip ("your right to swing your arm ends at my nose," I decry all the regional violence no matter who commits it), but I am not hostile towards Israel. I do not agree with Iran that they should be "wiped off the map" or "vanish from the pages of history" or whatever the quote is. The people of Israel are there now, perhaps through unfortunate meddling, but because they are there they should be allowed to build lives for themselves and have self-determination as much as the pre-existing countries in the region have. They are all nations with real populations of citizens - people - stuck in a crapshoot. I have sympathy for all of them.

However, it's very unlikely for someone to be hostile and AGREE, I'll admit.

"I agree with you - punch!"

Hostility and agreement are contradictions, I'll grant you. But there is a difference between mere disagreement and hostility. Disagreement can become hostility with stronger forms of disagreement, but not necessarily. A fierce debate and strong disagreement, even disgust at the opposing viewpoint can be had without the argument turning to threats and violence. And hostility does not always come from disagreement, it has other sources as well. As such, hostility and disagreement are not synonymous... As we can see in this civil discussion we are having.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

as Posted by NOBC:
" I will be on the Klissoura Road, at midnight, with my sabre, should you have any other need of me..." Thank you, Bernard Shaw...

Now, ummmm... you KNOW I'm a big fan of sniper rifles, right? You SURE you wanna just bring a sabre?

(And I'm just playin'. NOBC and I haven't got any real issues, far as I know)

And Shaw's other character in the same scene has the next line: " That's a cavalryman's proposal. I'll bring a cannon."
Just playin' right back...

Good line!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:48 AM