DC Tom Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 You seem to have access to historical information I don't. Yeah, there's an entire secret history of the world that's completely hidden from you and only accessible to people like Darin and I. It's not even worth the discussion, if you're going to be that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yeah, there's an entire secret history of the world that's completely hidden from you and only accessible to people like Darin and I. It's not even worth the discussion, if you're going to be that stupid. I joined the Templars and Illuminati for nothing. $%&^%$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I joined the Templars and Illuminati for nothing. $%&^%$ Should've joined the real secret government: The Lizard People Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Should've joined the real secret government: The Lizard People Boxcar Willie was reptilian. I knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yeah, it's just as simple as "because the U.S. supports Israel". There's little reason to have a discussion when it's apparently so easy for you to ignore history or how rank and file people view things from their little part of the world, especially given the way their media/educational systems work. In this instance you seem to be unable to look at things from the outside despite a plethora of sources that the average Middle Easterner doesn't enjoy. You regurgitate the same tired crap as gospel but pretend you're somehow different and you have access to things they can't even dream of. And it has nothing to do with "vitriol I think should be directed" at anyone. I simply understand that people who are oppressed or perceive themselves to be oppressed will on occasion react strongly against SOMEONE. Our ancestors did it and ended up founding this nation. Except it isn't. The world is simply a more complicated than it was back then and just because America doesn't directly rule anyone doesn't mean we don't exert significant influence all over the globe. If you think otherwise you're either a fool or are lying to yourself Then why did you use the above as a example? Is your point America is hated because it is powerful? You have yet to give me a actual answer to my question except if I have to tell you your stupid. And call off your lap dog-he may stoke your ego but is adding nothing to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Poor analogy. The colonists where under direct rule of the British crown,and of course that was the focus of the revolution.Why do you think the average Saudi or Egyptian hates us? Because we are running their country?You seem to have access to historical information I don't. Please enlighten me as how the US is responsible for the oppressive goverments in the middle east. Do you really think Mubarak would be leading one of the world's least democratic states for the last 25 years if he wasn't one of the greatest recipients of US aid? Would the House of Saud exist without US support? You keep the oil flowing, we'll give you security. The gulf war was all about this relationship, and has actually worked pretty well..... except for average Saudis. 60% of that country is probably under 20 and largely out of work...... tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick.....it's a frickin powder keg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It actually goes back to before the Shah but thanks for your permission. I was totally waiting for that. Now you have my permission to go back and be afraid of people who live in caves and hate your freedom. If you go back before the shah, you're dealing with the Brits and not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 If you go back before the shah, you're dealing with the Brits and not us. Ask the Iranians what they think of the Brits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 1) You brought it up2) Maybe It's where I work and what I do? Who are these experts you speak of? I'll agree nothing is 100% but the odds are in my favor. 3) Way to deflect the real worry. Umm because it's a fact? 4) WTF is a Chicot anyway? 1) I brought up the fact that Al-Qaeda has been killing Iraqi shiites by the thousand. IMHO this is directly relevant since Iran is an overwhelmingly shiite nation and the relationship between Al-Qaeda and shiite muslims is of relevance if you're going to talk about Iran somehow passing on an atom bomb to Al-Qaeda. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of an Iranian Republican Guard presence in Iraq is to this question. 2) What I mean is that I fail to see how anyone, knowing the attitude of Al-Qaeda towards shiite muslims, can make a coherent argument that Iran is somehow going to spend all this time, effort and money on developing the bomb and then just hand it over to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda represents and is made up of, an extreme branch of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as heretics. As I said, thousands of Iraqi Shiites have been slaughtered by Al-Qaeda. On several occasions, they have targetted Iranian pilgrims in Iraq and yet we are somehow to believe that Iran would be on such friendly terms with them that they would supply them with atomic weapons?! 3) Well, what exactly is the real worry. Israel? It has a very large nuclear arsenal of it's own to defend itself with so I wouldn't worry too much on it's behalf. 4) "Chicot" was a character in a Dumas (of 3 Musketeers fame) novel. Where does "Swede316" come from? On a more general theme, I think this idea that Iran is going to just pass on atomic weapons to even friendly groups is doubtful. It just doesn't make sense that they would spend so much time, money and effort developing these weapons and then pass them on to a third-party that they don't have full control over. The risk of dire consequences would be far too high. So they support Hamas and Hizbollah? So what. How many nuclear nations have supplied conventional arms to groups? How many have supplied these same groups with atomic weapons? The US didn't start supplying atomic weapons to the Contras, despite aiding them in numerous other ways. I suppose the answer to this is that Iran is somehow different, that conventional wisdom and common sense doesn't work when predicting their behaviour ...etc I don't buy that. I don't see any real evidence that the Iranian regime has a deathwish. In fact, if you ignore the rhetoric and examine what it actually does, it's actually pretty cautious and pragmatic. I really do not believe it's going to launch an atomic attack on Israel knowing that the response would be absolutely devastating. It won't supply atomic weapons to others for much the same reason. Look, I'd be happier if nuclear weapons were never invented and no nations had them but the fact is they have been. We can't turn back the clock and unmake them. Like it or not, plenty of places we may regard as unstable will eventually acquire nuclear technology and there's not really much that can be done to stop them. People said that India and Pakistan getting the bomb would lead to armaggedon. It didn't. North Korea getting the bomb was supposed to be the end of the world. It wasn't. If and when Iran gets atomic weapons, it won't lead to the end of the world either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 4) "Chicot" was a character in a Dumas (of 3 Musketeers fame) novel. Specifically, Dumas' little-known "Chicot and the Man". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 1) I brought up the fact that Al-Qaeda has been killing Iraqi shiites by the thousand. IMHO this is directly relevant since Iran is an overwhelmingly shiite nation and the relationship between Al-Qaeda and shiite muslims is of relevance if you're going to talk about Iran somehow passing on an atom bomb to Al-Qaeda. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of an Iranian Republican Guard presence in Iraq is to this question. 2) What I mean is that I fail to see how anyone, knowing the attitude of Al-Qaeda towards shiite muslims, can make a coherent argument that Iran is somehow going to spend all this time, effort and money on developing the bomb and then just hand it over to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda represents and is made up of, an extreme branch of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as heretics. As I said, thousands of Iraqi Shiites have been slaughtered by Al-Qaeda. On several occasions, they have targetted Iranian pilgrims in Iraq and yet we are somehow to believe that Iran would be on such friendly terms with them that they would supply them with atomic weapons?! 3) Well, what exactly is the real worry. Israel? It has a very large nuclear arsenal of it's own to defend itself with so I wouldn't worry too much on it's behalf. 4) "Chicot" was a character in a Dumas (of 3 Musketeers fame) novel. Where does "Swede316" come from? On a more general theme, I think this idea that Iran is going to just pass on atomic weapons to even friendly groups is doubtful. It just doesn't make sense that they would spend so much time, money and effort developing these weapons and then pass them on to a third-party that they don't have full control over. The risk of dire consequences would be far too high. So they support Hamas and Hizbollah? So what. How many nuclear nations have supplied conventional arms to groups? How many have supplied these same groups with atomic weapons? The US didn't start supplying atomic weapons to the Contras, despite aiding them in numerous other ways. I suppose the answer to this is that Iran is somehow different, that conventional wisdom and common sense doesn't work when predicting their behaviour ...etc I don't buy that. I don't see any real evidence that the Iranian regime has a deathwish. In fact, if you ignore the rhetoric and examine what it actually does, it's actually pretty cautious and pragmatic. I really do not believe it's going to launch an atomic attack on Israel knowing that the response would be absolutely devastating. It won't supply atomic weapons to others for much the same reason. Look, I'd be happier if nuclear weapons were never invented and no nations had them but the fact is they have been. We can't turn back the clock and unmake them. Like it or not, plenty of places we may regard as unstable will eventually acquire nuclear technology and there's not really much that can be done to stop them. People said that India and Pakistan getting the bomb would lead to armaggedon. It didn't. North Korea getting the bomb was supposed to be the end of the world. It wasn't. If and when Iran gets atomic weapons, it won't lead to the end of the world either. You make some good points...you really do but the fact remains that Iran is a radical Islamic regime that has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They support terrorist organizations. These are facts are they not? Except for maybe Pakistan the other examples of nuclear armed countries have nukes for a defensive purposes. NK, India, Isreal fear invasion or have long standing border issues. I don't think Iran has to fear anyone invading soon. I just don't thin thay should have them with their current leadership. As for Swede316...My nickname in the navy was Swede (after the character in Heartbreak Ridge) the 316 was from Stone Cold Steve Austin. Thought they'd combine into a decent screen name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts