DrFishfinder

da da diddy da in a bucket..... is that the one?

Islamic extremists would be more ecstatic about the damage to Israel than damage to a Mosque. They have purposely sacrificed thousands of their own men, women and children as well as buildings, apartments, utilities, schools and Mosques. To them, destruction of Israel far outweighs destruction of a Mosque, no matter how holy. That would be acceptable collateral damage.

I have a rock-solid alibi for those 7 weekends. Rock-solid, I tellya.

He's had 8 seasons to learn from his mistakes. Judging from the last 3 seasons, he keeps learning the same thing over and over again.

Laver, Rosewall and Stan Smith were great to watch!

Roddick appears to be a very one dimensional player....hard courts or bust. If and that's a big if, Fed can start going 50/50 with Nadal, then it would start to be interesting. But Nadal has largely owned Fed, at least lately.

If that.

One word.... Consistent.

I would expect the Mossad to try, and they are very, very good. I would also expect Ahmadinejad to try equally hard not to be found.

Ahmadinejad would be nowhere close to Tehran, or any other spot that would be a military target, if Iran were to strike Israel.

So.... The blitz seems to be working better. Is that a good thing for the D or a bad thing for the OL?

Yes, it most certainly is thinking in western terms. I never said that "top dogs" led suicide missions. As is almost always the case throughout history, they get others to do it. They are chess players, not the pieces.

You are still thinking in western terms. Can you guarantee that Ahmadinejad thinks like that? Islamic extremists have no problem whatsoever in sacrificing tens of thousands of their own people. They already have and continue to do so for their own ideological reasons and goals.

Hardly. Please.

Crazy in western terms. Western thinking would equate Iran using a nuke on Israel as suicide. It would be a mistake to automatically assume that Ahmadinejad thinks the same way, whether it is true or not.

They are so close to Seoul, and are so heavily armed, that any act of aggression against NK stands a very high probability of causing massive collateral damage to Seoul.

I would not argue with your statements. I would point out however, that you are thinking in traditional western terms. That may, I emphasize MAY, turn out to be a mistake.

I mean Iran in this case. Why would Iran start a war? Well, because there is a dangerous, unpredictable leader who does not think in traditional western terms. The culture he comes from glorifies death for specific causes and the so-called Islamic extremists have no qualms whatsoever about sacrificing their own innocent citizens to achieve their goals. The concept of being a suicide bomber is utterly foreign to western culture, but embraced, encouraged and glorified within Islamic extremism. They do not think as we do in those respects, therefore westerners have an intrinsic deficiency in trying to understand why. Why would the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor from thousands and thousands of miles away? It has been 64 years since a nuclear weapon was used in war conditions. Apart from Pakistan, no Islamic based nation has had nuclear weapons. That scenario will soon change with Iran. Since Ahmadinejad has espoused the complete eradication of Israel to the entire world, something that no world leader has done since Hitler's timeit is possible that in his mind, launching a nuclear tipped missile or two into Israel will galvanize the middle eastern countries that are governed by Islamic extremists. After all, Israel looks like a book of matches on a football field. The truth of the matter is that we don't know what Ahmadinejad is thinking. Nuclear weapons have served as a deterrent since Hiroshima. But presently, nothing seems to be deterring Iran from pursuing its present course to acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has continued to conduct its affairs as it sees fit, without nuclear weapons. Once it has them, all bets are off.

Edwards was rated in the top 5 QB's in the NFL for the first 4 or 5 games last year. I would say that shows he has displayed the talent and the potential to do it again, for more than 5 games. We shall see this season. He certainly has more weapons to work with.

I heard they're already working on a sequel: Snail VS Hippopotamus Starring Jack Black and Lisa Lampanelli

Geez man.....how could you turn a putrid JP thread into an even more putrid DJ thread? Are you trying to start a hurl-a-thon?

Well, it's the current greatest men's tennis rivalry. Even though they are both tremendous players, men's tennis hasn't had players who really grabbed the attention of the non-tennis public since Agassi. I don't know whether the players are really that bland and uninteresting or whether they are just being portrayed that way. Maybe I'm just showing my age, but gimme the glory days of Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Nastase & those guys. Or Evert, Navratilova & Billie Jean. THAT was some friggin' TENNIS.

No....sadly, I am fairly certain we will see another similar post with stupidity of an even higher magnitude.

No, not irrevocably. But negotiation makes more sense than ostensibly starting a war they simply cannot win with a nuclear weapon (or weapons). And in fact, the cons vastly outweigh the pros. So. It still remains to be seen what they will be negotiating for. I would love to hear what the real experts in this field have to say about it.

Iran will be committing suicide if they launch a nuke into Israel. Iran knows it, Israel knows it and everyone else knows it. Israel has an estimated 100+ nuclear weapons and would reduce Tehran and dozens of other Iranian military targets to molten glass in minutes. And that's not even taking into account the US stepping into the picture. Is Ahmedjinidad crazy enough to launch a nuke, or even 2 or 3 into Israel and subject his country to annihilation? Possibly, but it would be a moot point as what is left of Iran would be reduced to stone age conditions for a very, very long time. Israel would strike back swiftly and devastatingly with or without anyone's approval, including the US and UN. End of story and end of Iran as we know it now, for years....perhaps decades. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html North Korea is different in that South Korea does not have the arsenal to retaliate.....assuming SK was the target. Who responds and with what, could trigger a real multinational face off. And what would NK really obtain that would be worth that risk? Tyrants or not, the smart thing to do for both Iran and NK would be to use this as negotiational leverage. Committing an act of war with a nuclear weapon would cause Iran and NK to lose far, far more than they would ever gain.