Is Iran Next?
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
dannyboy said:
Like I thought, you're talking out your:
: again.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
I believe the only crap mouth that has not been banned would be you.
If you were half intelligent as you let on, you would have noticed that the statement is only my opinion, and not someone else's. But then of course, since you never have an opinion (with the exception of Tie), but can only link to other's opinions, you might not have recognized it as such.
BTW, how is the sale going of your millions of shares of UPS stock?
Best
d
If you were half intelligent as you let on, you would have noticed that the statement is only my opinion, and not someone else's. But then of course, since you never have an opinion (with the exception of Tie), but can only link to other's opinions, you might not have recognized it as such.
BTW, how is the sale going of your millions of shares of UPS stock?
Best
d
tieguy
Banned
susiedriver said:
Then you have no concern to speak of. No convictions and no principles to guide you. It's real simple. Do you feel that nuclear proliferation should be stopped. You say you do but you're not willing to make the sacrifice to stop it in its tracks. North Korea is not the result of Bush looking the wrong way its the result of 50 years of failed diplomacy. It may require a dozen cruise missles fired deep into its nuclear reactor to stop. It may require a war to stop. But if you're not willing to take that final military step to stop it then you have no steel in your spine. Your enemy will eventually figure out that you are not willing to take military action at which point the North Korea's of the world will proceed as planned. Once they have the weapons they will have no qualms about taking military action against you or your neighbors. Without a willingness to take that step you are not willing to see stopping nuclear proliferation all the way through. As such you are probably better off taking a passive, look the other way approach in the hope that you do not piss off those countries and suffer at their hands militarily. Since this clearly appears to be your plan of action why even raise the issue in the first place? Perhaps you could find an avatar of a women spreading her legs to represent your position on stopping nukes?
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Actually Tie, that would be her solution to stop rape. See, if you allow it to happen, then it is no longer rape. So then there is no problem now is there. The woman still gets the shaft, but it is no longer wrong or illegal.
Words without action are just that, empty words. And sooner than later, action will follow anyway.
So Susie, you would wait until someone drops one on us before taking out the capability first? Esp with someone that has promised the use if they ever get to that point?
d
Words without action are just that, empty words. And sooner than later, action will follow anyway.
So Susie, you would wait until someone drops one on us before taking out the capability first? Esp with someone that has promised the use if they ever get to that point?
d
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
dBoy & tie,
Where to begin? Ill start with you, dBoy; using your logic, it would then be reasonable to lock up every man, since they may be capable of rape. Remove the threat before it actually is a threat. Or would you just lock up those who have ever purchased, rented or looked at pornography? Or maybe just any man who has ever lusted in his heart for a woman who he is not married to?
Sorry, your argument holds no water, just as your opinions regarding the Iranian situation have no basis in fact. To suggest that Saddam spirited his non-existent WMDs to Iran is to ignore the animosity between the two countries.
Tie,
Its just like you to change the subject from Iran to North Korea. Lets stick to the subject at hand. 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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you could use an avatar of someone with their head up their rear to represent your view? Here ya go:
http://my.opera.com/salmondine/homes/albums/388/thumbs/head%20up%20own%20ass.jpg_thumb.jpg
Where to begin? Ill start with you, dBoy; using your logic, it would then be reasonable to lock up every man, since they may be capable of rape. Remove the threat before it actually is a threat. Or would you just lock up those who have ever purchased, rented or looked at pornography? Or maybe just any man who has ever lusted in his heart for a woman who he is not married to?
Sorry, your argument holds no water, just as your opinions regarding the Iranian situation have no basis in fact. To suggest that Saddam spirited his non-existent WMDs to Iran is to ignore the animosity between the two countries.
Tie,
Its just like you to change the subject from Iran to North Korea. Lets stick to the subject at hand. 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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you could use an avatar of someone with their head up their rear to represent your view? Here ya go:
http://my.opera.com/salmondine/homes/albums/388/thumbs/head%20up%20own%20ass.jpg_thumb.jpg
tieguy
Banned
Tie,
Its just like you to change the subject from Iran to North Korea. Lets stick to the subject at hand.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hence the reference to North Korea. International law did a miserable job containing North Korea. Diplomacy without steel leads to impotence.
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.
Like the conspiracy rumors do you?
Perhaps you could use an avatar of someone with their head up their rear to represent your view? Here ya go:
Could I have one with your head instead?
Its just like you to change the subject from Iran to North Korea. Lets stick to the subject at hand.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hence the reference to North Korea. International law did a miserable job containing North Korea. Diplomacy without steel leads to impotence.
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.
Like the conspiracy rumors do you?
Perhaps you could use an avatar of someone with their head up their rear to represent your view? Here ya go:
Could I have one with your head instead?
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Le's see, the Soviets began reading your so-called 'dummies guide to nukes' during WWII, so I would assume that you would have had our forces keep going on to Moscow from Berlin?tie said:
North Korea withdrew fron the NPT in 2003. China is better suited to deal with North Korea than we are. Once again, we are not the world's police.tie said:
Nope, just read the news. Fact: China has entered into massive deals with Iran for oil and natural gas. Fact: China has the fastest growing economy in the world. Fact: China holds hundreds of billions of dollars of US debt. Fact: Iran intends to open their own international oil bourse in 2006, trading in Euros.tie said:
I know you prefer not to deal in facts, but there they are.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
But dear Susie, in dealing with rapists, we have seen that your method which we currently enjoy in this country allows rapists to go free after serving in many cases a light sentence and in many cases to rape again and again.
When is enough enough.
And from someone that calls the chat site the rape room and is too afraid to enter, what a joke and conflicting personality. You not entering the chat is a preemptive strike against those there, not to mention your bigotry shines forth once more to infer that those present are rapists.
d
When is enough enough.
And from someone that calls the chat site the rape room and is too afraid to enter, what a joke and conflicting personality. You not entering the chat is a preemptive strike against those there, not to mention your bigotry shines forth once more to infer that those present are rapists.
d
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
Yeah, those pesky laws and rights get in the way. What we need is vigilantism!dannyboy said:
Why would I want to enter a room where everyone there would like nothing more than to gang up on me? You boys just enjoy whatever it is you do there without me.
Of course, it would never occur to you that I may have something better to do? Especially in the evening. The only reason I'm here today is I'm under the weather. You may have noticed, I haven't been on much of late.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
What rights, those of the victim or those of the convicted felon?
In the case of the first, those rights are totally trashed by those bleeding heart liberals who think the woman wanted or deserved being raped.
And those of the felon? Well now they have all the rights in the world. Poor dears. And it was all because they had a deprived childhood, and terrible Tie took their twinkies away from them.
You know, California had it right on when they passed the three strikes law. If you are that stupid after your second strike, and try and shop lift a beer or pack of smokes, then you really are too stupid to be in open society, you need to be locked away for life.
As for Rapists, second strike and you ought to get the death penalty. After all, how many people are we going to let you hurt before we take you away.
d
In the case of the first, those rights are totally trashed by those bleeding heart liberals who think the woman wanted or deserved being raped.
And those of the felon? Well now they have all the rights in the world. Poor dears. And it was all because they had a deprived childhood, and terrible Tie took their twinkies away from them.
You know, California had it right on when they passed the three strikes law. If you are that stupid after your second strike, and try and shop lift a beer or pack of smokes, then you really are too stupid to be in open society, you need to be locked away for life.
As for Rapists, second strike and you ought to get the death penalty. After all, how many people are we going to let you hurt before we take you away.
d
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
dannychild,
I fail to see how this relates to pre-emptive war in Iran. Are you suggesting that we psychologically test people, and jail likely criminals?
Why do you constantly try to derail threads?
I fail to see how this relates to pre-emptive war in Iran. Are you suggesting that we psychologically test people, and jail likely criminals?
Why do you constantly try to derail threads?
tieguy
Banned
dBoy & tie,
Where to begin? Ill start with you, dBoy; using your logic, it would then be reasonable to lock up every man, since they may be capable of rape. Remove the threat before it actually is a threat. Or would you just lock up those who have ever purchased, rented or looked at pornography? Or maybe just any man who has ever lusted in his heart for a woman who he is not married to?
Not the best analogy Susan. Rape is considered by most experts an act of violence versus an act of sexual gratification. Viewing pornography would be a passive act with no violence associated.
Where to begin? Ill start with you, dBoy; using your logic, it would then be reasonable to lock up every man, since they may be capable of rape. Remove the threat before it actually is a threat. Or would you just lock up those who have ever purchased, rented or looked at pornography? Or maybe just any man who has ever lusted in his heart for a woman who he is not married to?
Not the best analogy Susan. Rape is considered by most experts an act of violence versus an act of sexual gratification. Viewing pornography would be a passive act with no violence associated.
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
And what would pre-emptive war be, violent or passive?
susiedriver
Well-Known Member
India or Pakistan, which do we attack?
wily_old_vet
Well-Known Member
wkmac said:No violence associated uh! Well explain the huge number of blisters on the hands and a sensitive body part and tell me it wasn't violence that put them there!
ROFLMAO
Similar threads
