Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Is Iran Next?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tieguy" data-source="post: 75689" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>Tie,</p><p> </p><p>Its just like you to change the subject from Iran to North Korea. Lets stick to the subject at hand.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Actually dear girl I used North Korea to illustrate my point on Iran and how diplomacy only takes you so far. As such my reference was totally within context. I'm surprised one who studies grammar so thoroughly could not make this distinction.</span></p><p> </p><p> Using your logic, we would have launched a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union back in the late 50s or early 60s. They had a large nuclear arsenal pointed directly towards us, and we were locked in a very warm Cold War with them. Khrushchev had threatened to bury us, and had even begun to move missiles just off our coast. Thank goodness you werent in charge then, or GWB, for that matter.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">No dear girl not at all. You just enhanced my point. I would have gone in militarily when the Soviets first started reading " a dummies guide to nukes" thus eliminating the need to live in bomb shelters in the 50's and 60's. Wouldn't that have made the 50's and 60's a much better time?</span></p><p> </p><p>Iran is a signatory to the NPT. It is in an area that already is awash in nuclear weapons. Its sworn enemy has nuclear weapons, yet is not a signatory to the NPT. International law can deal with Iran. The United States does not have the final say in this matter.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Hence the reference to North Korea. International law did a miserable job containing North Korea. Diplomacy without steel leads to impotence. </span></p><p> </p><p>Personally, I believe these leaked stories are put out there to justify the ambitions of the Neo-Cons that have taken over our foreign policy. The building alliance between China and Iran should be of more concern to us, as a nation, IMO.</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Like the conspiracy rumors do you?</span></p><p> </p><p>Perhaps you could use an avatar of someone with their head up their rear to represent your view? Here ya go:</p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">Could I have one with your head instead?</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 75689, member: 1912"] Tie, Its just like you to change the subject from Iran to North Korea. Lets stick to the subject at hand. [COLOR=blue]Actually dear girl I used North Korea to illustrate my point on Iran and how diplomacy only takes you so far. As such my reference was totally within context. I'm surprised one who studies grammar so thoroughly could not make this distinction.[/COLOR] Using your logic, we would have launched a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union back in the late 50s or early 60s. They had a large nuclear arsenal pointed directly towards us, and we were locked in a very warm Cold War with them. Khrushchev had threatened to bury us, and had even begun to move missiles just off our coast. Thank goodness you werent in charge then, or GWB, for that matter. [COLOR=blue]No dear girl not at all. You just enhanced my point. I would have gone in militarily when the Soviets first started reading " a dummies guide to nukes" thus eliminating the need to live in bomb shelters in the 50's and 60's. Wouldn't that have made the 50's and 60's a much better time?[/COLOR] Iran is a signatory to the NPT. It is in an area that already is awash in nuclear weapons. Its sworn enemy has nuclear weapons, yet is not a signatory to the NPT. International law can deal with Iran. The United States does not have the final say in this matter. [COLOR=blue]Hence the reference to North Korea. International law did a miserable job containing North Korea. Diplomacy without steel leads to impotence. [/COLOR] Personally, I believe these leaked stories are put out there to justify the ambitions of the Neo-Cons that have taken over our foreign policy. The building alliance between China and Iran should be of more concern to us, as a nation, IMO. [COLOR=blue]Like the conspiracy rumors do you?[/COLOR] Perhaps you could use an avatar of someone with their head up their rear to represent your view? Here ya go: [COLOR=blue]Could I have one with your head instead?[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Is Iran Next?
Top