goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on May 04, 2010, 04:03:40 PM
-
surrounded by Nuclear Powers, including Israel which refuses to sign any NNP treaties and refuses to disclose its Nuclear Arsenal . . . you can have none.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3884508,00.html
Now that Hillary is running all over the world squawking about how Iran has violated IAEA mandates . . . but have they really?? Navy Chief says Iran's speed boats pose "threat" to the US Navy. The Rhetoric just keeps getting ratcheted up by this war mongering administration.
-
I cant imagine any scenerio with Iran having nukes that could end up poorly. Not one.
-
How about Pakistan, can you think of any scenarios where Pakistan which already possesses nuclear weapons that would be bad??
-
surrounded by Nuclear Powers, including Israel which refuses to sign any NNP treaties and refuses to disclose its Nuclear Arsenal . . . you can have none.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3884508,00.html
Now that Hillary is running all over the world squawking about how Iran has violated IAEA mandates . . . but have they really?? Navy Chief says Iran's speed boats pose "threat" to the US Navy. The Rhetoric just keeps getting ratcheted up by this war mongering administration.
Are you saying that Iran should be allowed to have nukes?
-
Think about what you're saying.
You live in a country that has over 5000 nukes, and that has been in more wars in the last 60 years around the world than any other country.
Let's review the last 21 years. Invaded Panama, First Gulf War, Bombed Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, invaded Iraq, Invaded Afghanistan and are currently conducting military combat operations in at last 4 other countries that we know of . . .
A country that has used Nuclear Weapons once, and seriously discussed using them in Korea and Vietnam. In addition, we had a president who contemplated introducing one of the most powerful weapons of aggression in the world in the Neutron Bomb. OH but it was a stop gap measure to stop those hordes of Russian Tanks . . . horse$hit, it was the ultimate weapon of aggression, low yield, kill the people but don't blow up the buildings and then move in and take over.
Now, we are telling a country surrounded by Nuclear Powers, that it can't have Nuclear Weapons.
-
Yeah, great idea, 'Pad. Just what the world needs is more middle eastern countries with nuclear weapons.
:facepalm:
-
This is some weird deja vu stuff, because when Bush was president and bitching about nukes, the other side was bitching about his nuclear policies.
Of course Iran has nukes. :ohno:
-
Well Ben, not to worry, you war mongering hero is going to ensure that they don't get them, one way or another.
How many thousands of pounds of Bunker Buster munitions were moved to Diego Garcia again??
-
Hey Ben when is the United States going to make Israel disclose it's Nuclear Arsenal??
Don't hold your breath as long as Ron "AIPAC" Emanuel is COS.
Love all of our "tough talk" on Israel, yet we just keep right on selling them weapons and giving them billions of dollars in aid.
-
:facepalm:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”
"This regime (Israel) will one day disappear."
"Israel is doomed to be "wiped from the map" in "a war of destiny."
"The countdown for the destruction of Israel" has begun."
"Zionists are "the personification of Satan."
Ahmadinejad
I couldn't ever imagine why anyone would want Iran to have Nukes unless they want all the Jews in Israel dead.
-
I'm split on this issue. On one hand Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, and on the other their leaders are f*cking crazy. So idk :dunno:
-
The US could change its position and tell Iran to go ahead and develop nukes, and Israel would nuke them the next day. So this is a moot issue.
-
Then let Israel nuke them the next day.
Doubt it will be Nuke though. Either way, I'd say there's a 75% chance somebody is going to be bombing Iran in the next 18 months. Just can't let those Persians be a nuclear power.
-
What percentage Iranian are you, 'Pad?
:confused:
-
Then let Israel nuke them the next day.
Doubt it will be Nuke though. Either way, I'd say there's a 75% chance somebody is going to be bombing Iran in the next 18 months. Just can't let those Persians be a nuclear power.
The propaganda machine is in full force. I say less than 18 months.
-
Think about what you're saying.
You live in a country that has over 5000 nukes, and that has been in more wars in the last 60 years around the world than any other country.
Let's review the last 21 years. Invaded Panama, First Gulf War, Bombed Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, invaded Iraq, Invaded Afghanistan and are currently conducting military combat operations in at last 4 other countries that we know of . . .
A country that has used Nuclear Weapons once, and seriously discussed using them in Korea and Vietnam. In addition, we had a president who contemplated introducing one of the most powerful weapons of aggression in the world in the Neutron Bomb. OH but it was a stop gap measure to stop those hordes of Russian Tanks . . . horse$hit, it was the ultimate weapon of aggression, low yield, kill the people but don't blow up the buildings and then move in and take over.
Now, we are telling a country surrounded by Nuclear Powers, that it can't have Nuclear Weapons.
All you have pointed out is what a burden to be the worlds police force, and we've done it without using nukes since 1945, even though we have thousands. Amanutjob has already said he will use his ASAP and needs to be taken out Jack Bauer style.
-
I'm split on this issue. On one hand Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, and on the other their leaders are f*cking crazy. So idk :dunno:
I agree. I don't have a problem with a country developing nukes for self defense, unless that country is unstable. An even bigger worry than Ahmadinejad getting nukes is who will end up with these nukes when he inevitably gets overthrown? We really don't want Al Qaeda to have nuclear missiles.
-
Think about what you're saying.
You live in a country that has over 5000 nukes, and that has been in more wars in the last 60 years around the world than any other country.
Let's review the last 21 years. Invaded Panama, First Gulf War, Bombed Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, invaded Iraq, Invaded Afghanistan and are currently conducting military combat operations in at last 4 other countries that we know of . . .
A country that has used Nuclear Weapons once, and seriously discussed using them in Korea and Vietnam. In addition, we had a president who contemplated introducing one of the most powerful weapons of aggression in the world in the Neutron Bomb. OH but it was a stop gap measure to stop those hordes of Russian Tanks . . . horse$hit, it was the ultimate weapon of aggression, low yield, kill the people but don't blow up the buildings and then move in and take over.
Now, we are telling a country surrounded by Nuclear Powers, that it can't have Nuclear Weapons.
All you have pointed out is what a burden to be the worlds police force, and we've done it without using nukes since 1945, even though we have thousands. Amanutjob has already said he will use his ASAP and needs to be taken out Jack Bauer style.
:lol: :lol:
You do realize that Team America World Police was a satire, right?
-
dax is a terrorist!
-
Think about what you're saying.
You live in a country that has over 5000 nukes, and that has been in more wars in the last 60 years around the world than any other country.
Let's review the last 21 years. Invaded Panama, First Gulf War, Bombed Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, invaded Iraq, Invaded Afghanistan and are currently conducting military combat operations in at last 4 other countries that we know of . . .
A country that has used Nuclear Weapons once, and seriously discussed using them in Korea and Vietnam. In addition, we had a president who contemplated introducing one of the most powerful weapons of aggression in the world in the Neutron Bomb. OH but it was a stop gap measure to stop those hordes of Russian Tanks . . . horse$hit, it was the ultimate weapon of aggression, low yield, kill the people but don't blow up the buildings and then move in and take over.
Now, we are telling a country surrounded by Nuclear Powers, that it can't have Nuclear Weapons.
All you have pointed out is what a burden to be the worlds police force, and we've done it without using nukes since 1945, even though we have thousands. Amanutjob has already said he will use his ASAP and needs to be taken out Jack Bauer style.
:lol: :lol:
You do realize that Team America World Police was a satire, right?
Pretty sure it was based on a true story though.
-
Dax, have you been to NYC lately?
-
Love it the useful idiots bye the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Pakistan is an amazingly unstable country has been for decades . . . they have nukes. It's probably the most unstable its ever been thanks to Obama's drone wars.
-
Then let Israel nuke them the next day.
Doubt it will be Nuke though. Either way, I'd say there's a 75% chance somebody is going to be bombing Iran in the next 18 months. Just can't let those Persians be a nuclear power.
I will be solidly against any administration that gets us involved with another conflict. I'm obviously more liberal than your average GPC poster, but I am rough ridin' done with this administration if they get us involved in another conflict.
Limestone is right, let rough ridin' Israel clean up their own rough ridin' mess.
-
Love it the useful idiots bye the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Pakistan is an amazingly unstable country has been for decades . . . they have nukes. It's probably the most unstable its ever been thanks to Obama's drone wars.
:facepalm:
Pakistan is no where near as unstable as Iraq/Iran. They are moderately westernized compared to other middle eastern countries.
-
Love it the useful idiots bye the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Pakistan is an amazingly unstable country has been for decades . . . they have nukes. It's probably the most unstable its ever been thanks to Obama's drone wars.
Come on man, the cluster eff in Afghanistan was set in motion the day boots hit the soil. Just like every occupying regime that has ever set foot in that joint. Has Obama kept it going? Yep. Would a republican have done the same (or more)? Yep.
I don't approve of either.
I respect the hell out of our troops for following orders, but they are all dying in vain in both Iraq and Afghan.
-
Love it the useful idiots bye the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Pakistan is an amazingly unstable country has been for decades . . . they have nukes. It's probably the most unstable its ever been thanks to Obama's drone wars.
:facepalm:
Pakistan is no where near as unstable as Iraq/Iran. They are moderately westernized compared to other middle eastern countries.
On this point, Beams is correct. They are a former British colony (by way of India). A large segment of the population is very educated. A large segment isn't. You know, like the tea party in the U.S.
-
Wasnt Pakistan ran by the taliban until recently? Doesnt seem very westernized to me. Also, werent we against Pakistan developing nukes as well? Seems like we were afraid they would use them on India...
-
You guys haven't been paying attention to what's going on inside Pakistan then.
There's hundreds of thousands of refugees now due to the fighting. The country is full of US JSOC Forces and Hired Gun U.S. Mercs like Blackwater and lots of CIA Spooks . . . behind the scenes the situation in Pakistan scares the living $hit the defense officials in our government. There's even reports that the United States Special Forces are updating their plans to go in and secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal themselves if need be. The U.S. has very little trust in the Pakistani military and even less in the ISI. You do understand that some circles claim that it was faction in the ISI that assisted the 9-11 hijackers right?? The Tribal Regions near Afghanistan are all pissed off at the way contractors that support the NATO operations in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) treat them . . . running their trucks over people, damaging roads etc. etc. etc.
Educate yourselves, put down your Encyclopedia Britannica and college textbooks and join the real world.
The upheaval in Pakistan is far more violent than what is going on in Iran (primarily driven by CIA backed entities).
When's the last time a presidential candidate in Iran got assassinated??
Good gawd . . . :facepalm:
-
You guys haven't been paying attention to what's going on inside Pakistan then.
There's hundreds of thousands of refugees now due to the fighting. The country is full of US JSOC Forces and Hired Gun U.S. Mercs like Blackwater and lots of CIA Spooks . . . behind the scenes the situation in Pakistan scares the living $hit the defense officials in our government. There's even reports that the United States Special Forces are updating their plans to go in and secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal themselves if need be. The U.S. has very little trust in the Pakistani military and even less in the ISI. You do understand that some circles claim that it was faction in the ISI that assisted the 9-11 hijackers right?? The Tribal Regions near Afghanistan are all pissed off at the way contractors that support the NATO operations in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) treat them . . . running their trucks over people, damaging roads etc. etc. etc.
Educate yourselves, put down your Encyclopedia Britannica and college textbooks and join the real world.
The upheaval in Pakistan is far more violent than what is going on in Iran (primarily driven by CIA backed entities).
When's the last time a presidential candidate in Iran got assassinated??
Good gawd . . . :facepalm:
Iran's been a totalitarian regime for decades now....so the last time one was assassinated was when the regime changed. You remember what it was like then. You remember the mass exodus out of Iran to the west.
What's your point here? Is it that things would be better if the GOP was in charge, or that it's just as bad now? I have to tell you man, it's clear that it's no better, but I'll never believe that it's worse. We need to get the eff out of Dodge, or suffer the fate of every nation that has attempted the same before us.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/12/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-security-fears
However, a report by Harvard University's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, titled Securing the Bomb 2010, said Pakistan's stockpile "faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth".
Okay kids, its adult swim time. We'll let you back in the pool when you get a little bigger.
-
Holy crap, Dax is one paranoid bastard. Love the stories about spooks and "in some circles." Hilarious stuff here.
-
http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan
JT . . . would "some circles" be Harvard and the Nation Magazine.
Really, you guys don't even want to go here with me, I've been studying the situation closely for months.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/12/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-security-fears
However, a report by Harvard University's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, titled Securing the Bomb 2010, said Pakistan's stockpile "faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth".
Okay kids, its adult swim time. We'll let you back in the pool when you get a little bigger.
What are you advocating? You have a number of posts now aimed at creating awareness. OK, you've got my mother rough ridin' awareness. Now what?
-
Dax has been "monitoring the situation closely?" And by that, you mean reading articles online? :facepalm:
-
I would have assassinated Xerxes for what its worth. He was total queers.
-
Dax has been "monitoring the situation closely?" And by that, you mean reading articles online? :facepalm:
He's just trying to put it in a context that you might actually be able to understand. :dunno:
Can't preach to the deaf with words, ya know?
-
I just find the hypocrisy of the United States running around the world trying to control which countries do and don't get Nuclear Weapons amusing.
If you look at the way U.S. Military Doctrine is progressing and U.S. Military Technology is progressing, about the only way a country will be able to defend themselves against the United States is Nuclear Weapons. One of the biggest reasons we don't want Iran with Nuclear Weapons besides the obvious is because if the day ever comes we want to pull the trigger on them they won't stand a chance.
Obama is pushing hard for a reduction in nuclear weapons because the United States is well on the way to developing the ultimate conventional capability and other countries will be even further under the thumb of the United States.
Again, if you were Iran, what would you be doing right now. Thousands of U.S. troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are signing base agreements all over in the former Soviet countries that are close to Iran, we have hundreds of warships that patrol the waters around Iran and India, Pakistan, China (the most oil hungry country in the world) and Israel all have nuclear weapons.
JT . . . welcome to the World Wide Web . . . we don't need libraries any more, we don't need Faux News or MSNBC to tell us what to think.
-
I just find the hypocrisy of the United States running around the world trying to control which countries do and don't get Nuclear Weapons amusing.
If you look at the way U.S. Military Doctrine is progressing and U.S. Military Technology is progressing, about the only way a country will be able to defend themselves against the United States is Nuclear Weapons. One of the biggest reasons we don't want Iran with Nuclear Weapons besides the obvious is because if the day ever comes we want to pull the trigger on them they won't stand a chance.
Obama is pushing hard for a reduction in nuclear weapons because the United States is well on the way to developing the ultimate conventional capability and other countries will be even further under the thumb of the United States.
Again, if you were Iran, what would you be doing right now. Thousands of U.S. troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are signing base agreements all over in the former Soviet countries that are close to Iran, we have hundreds of warships that patrol the waters around Iran and India, Pakistan, China (the most oil hungry country in the world) and Israel all have nuclear weapons.
JT . . . welcome to the World Wide Web . . . we don't need libraries any more, we don't need Faux News or MSNBC to tell us what to think.
I agree man, it is very hypocritical for us to go bonkers about Iran getting a nuke, while shrugging off other at-risk nations.
-
Also understand that our JCOS along with Centcom just did a huge study of what is going on Israel and basically established that current political and domestic situation in Israel is putting U.S. lives at risk . . .that's extraordinary given the source. The study went on to say that there's no way the U.S. could achieve its political goals in the middle east until the Arab-Israeli conflict is resolved.
You've also got political factions within Israel putting a lot of pressure on the U.S. administration about Iran . . . but meanwhile Israel is feeling the heat more so every day in regards to their Nuclear Weapons.
It's a fascinating study.
-
Then let Israel nuke them the next day.
Doubt it will be Nuke though. Either way, I'd say there's a 75% chance somebody is going to be bombing Iran in the next 18 months. Just can't let those Persians be a nuclear power.
I will be solidly against any administration that gets us involved with another conflict. I'm obviously more liberal than your average GPC poster, but I am fracking done with this administration if they get us involved in another conflict.
Limestone is right, let fracking Israel clean up their own fracking mess.
Israel will gladly clean up this mess as they have been doing for the last half century.
-
I just cant believe that Dax has an entire threat about how he wants Iran to have nuclear capability.
-
Love it the useful idiots bye the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Pakistan is an amazingly unstable country has been for decades . . . they have nukes. It's probably the most unstable its ever been thanks to Obama's drone wars.
Come on man, the cluster shazbot! in Afghanistan was set in motion the day boots hit the soil. Just like every occupying regime that has ever set foot in that joint. Has Obama kept it going? Yep. Would a republican have done the same (or more)? Yep.
I don't approve of either.
I respect the hell out of our troops for following orders, but they are all dying in vain in both Iraq and Afghan.
Recently watched the Hurt Locker, while I am not sure how much is based in reality, the sheer waste of life our troops have to bear is gut wrenching. Can anyone of any political persuasion even muster a response as to what the eff we are doing there at this point?
-
Dax, there is no res judicata in international politics. We let paki have nukes in a cold war reprieve. In hindsight, we wouldn't and I believe you that we have a whole gang of operators ready to secure the payloads if things go to crap.
That being said, no way Iran gets nukes. This isn't the Brady bunch where Bobby gets a football because Greg got one. Iran isn't getting the bomb. Iran is currently our bitch and we intend on keeping it that way.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/12/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-security-fears
However, a report by Harvard University's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, titled Securing the Bomb 2010, said Pakistan's stockpile "faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth".
Okay kids, its adult swim time. We'll let you back in the pool when you get a little bigger.
I don't see how anybody could disagree that Paki's nukes are vulnerable, but what good does it do to let Iran have them, too?
India helps keeps Pakistan in check.
-
You guys haven't been paying attention to what's going on inside Pakistan then.
There's hundreds of thousands of refugees now due to the fighting. The country is full of US JSOC Forces and Hired Gun U.S. Mercs like Blackwater and lots of CIA Spooks . . . behind the scenes the situation in Pakistan scares the living $hit the defense officials in our government. There's even reports that the United States Special Forces are updating their plans to go in and secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal themselves if need be. The U.S. has very little trust in the Pakistani military and even less in the ISI. You do understand that some circles claim that it was faction in the ISI that assisted the 9-11 hijackers right?? The Tribal Regions near Afghanistan are all pissed off at the way contractors that support the NATO operations in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) treat them . . . running their trucks over people, damaging roads etc. etc. etc.
Educate yourselves, put down your Encyclopedia Britannica and college textbooks and join the real world.
The upheaval in Pakistan is far more violent than what is going on in Iran (primarily driven by CIA backed entities).
When's the last time a presidential candidate in Iran got assassinated??
Good gawd . . . :facepalm:
Just like those American "Hikers" that were caught in the middle of no where. They were definitely CIA dudes.
-
Limestone . . . really?? You just used a Brady Bunch analogy to describe what a sovereign nation can and can't do?? :facepalm:
Plus, the only reason Pakistan was brought into the discussion was because apparently the World Police Force supporters that inhabit this board don't understand that Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran is . . . nothing more, nothing less.
Gee, I wonder why the people of Iran have been so distrustful of the United States??
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Mohammad_Mosaddeq.jpg/200px-Mohammad_Mosaddeq.jpg)
So lets review. The U.S. overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran backed in the 1950's, the U.S. has invaded and conquered Iran's neighbor, thousands of U.S. troops sit right across the border from Iran, the U.S. actively supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, the CIA is actively engaged in supporting anti government factions inside Iran, the U.S./NATO is pursuing military alliances and basing agreements in the former Soviet countries that are near to Iran, Iran shares a border with NATO partner Turkey where there's a huge U.S. airbase, the U.S. plans on deploying anti-missile shields in support of Oil Dictatorships and Theocracies in the Middle East and Israel has nuclear weapons and is sending its electronic war fare planes and Air Force out all the time to plan the routes for its bombers to go bomb Iran.
Gee . . . what on earth are the Iranians thinking??
-
Dax, of course Pakistan is the most likely country for terrorists to secure nukes. Very unstable situation over there. What do you propose we do about it, though? Just march in and take them? Good luck with that.
None of this changes the fact that Iran with nukes would be just as much of a disaster as Pakistan with nukes.
-
As far as Pakistan goes, yeah, we actually have plans to just "march in there and take them" if need be.
The goose steppers are missing the point here as always.
Look at what we as a nation do, and then ask yourself why other nations react the way they do.
Oh but wait, Barry W. Obama is now parroting the same Terra-ists lines and "can't let'm have nukes" lines of the previous administration and the Libratard ideologically driven useful idiots just line up and cheerlead.
Just say no to war and U.S. hegemony . . . Unless a Democrat is president.
-
As far as Pakistan goes, yeah, we actually have plans to just "march in there and take them" if need be.
The goose steppers are missing the point here as always.
Look at what we as a nation do, and then ask yourself why other nations react the way they do.
Oh but wait, Barry W. Obama is now parroting the same Terra-ists lines and "can't let'm have nukes" lines of the previous administration and the Libratard ideologically driven useful idiots just line up and cheerlead.
Just say no to war and U.S. hegemony . . . Unless a Democrat is president.
For a guy who has been closely analyzing the situation, you seem a bit out of the loop.
1. Nations have been acting in their sole best interests since the advent of the nation-state.
2. It is not in the US's best interests to allow Iran to become another nation in possession of deployable nuclear technology.
3. Profit.
To take it a step further, and as someone who has spent countless hours and tons of banwidth closely monitoring the situation you are no doubt aware, Iran has done nothing short of attack our troops in Iraq. They have waged armed war against our troops in Iraq. I would like a list of countries who would provide a country they are in armed conflict with access to nuclear weapons if they could at all prevent it.
-
As far as Pakistan goes, yeah, we actually have plans to just "march in there and take them" if need be.
The goose steppers are missing the point here as always.
Look at what we as a nation do, and then ask yourself why other nations react the way they do.
Oh but wait, Barry W. Obama is now parroting the same Terra-ists lines and "can't let'm have nukes" lines of the previous administration and the Libratard ideologically driven useful idiots just line up and cheerlead.
Just say no to war and U.S. hegemony . . . Unless a Democrat is president.
For a guy who has been closely analyzing the situation, you seem a bit out of the loop.
1. Nations have been acting in their sole best interests since the advent of the nation-state.
2. It is not in the US's best interests to allow Iran to become another nation in possession of deployable nuclear technology.
3. Profit.
To take it a step further, and as someone who has spent countless hours and tons of banwidth closely monitoring the situation you are no doubt aware, Iran has done nothing short of attack our troops in Iraq. They have waged armed war against our troops in Iraq. I would like a list of countries who would provide a country they are in armed conflict with access to nuclear weapons if they could at all prevent it.
This is a good point. After the US, Iran is the largest arms supplier in the Middle East, specifically to radical Muslim extremists. If they get nukes, they will be supplying our enemies with those too.
-
Iran should not have nukes. They are bad.
-
Dax's main point seems to be: Although Pakistan is unstable, they are allowed to have nukes so shouldn't an unstable Iran be allowed to have nukes? I don't follow his reasoning on this point.
-
Dax's main point seems to be: Although Pakistan is unstable, they are allowed to have nukes so shouldn't an unstable Iran be allowed to have nukes? I don't follow his reasoning on this point.
That was the point of my (apparently) overly simplistic Brady Bunch analogy.
-
As far as Pakistan goes, yeah, we actually have plans to just "march in there and take them" if need be.
The goose steppers are missing the point here as always.
Look at what we as a nation do, and then ask yourself why other nations react the way they do.
Oh but wait, Barry W. Obama is now parroting the same Terra-ists lines and "can't let'm have nukes" lines of the previous administration and the Libratard ideologically driven useful idiots just line up and cheerlead.
Just say no to war and U.S. hegemony . . . Unless a Democrat is president.
For a guy who has been closely analyzing the situation, you seem a bit out of the loop.
1. Nations have been acting in their sole best interests since the advent of the nation-state.
2. It is not in the US's best interests to allow Iran to become another nation in possession of deployable nuclear technology.
3. Profit.
To take it a step further, and as someone who has spent countless hours and tons of banwidth closely monitoring the situation you are no doubt aware, Iran has done nothing short of attack our troops in Iraq. They have waged armed war against our troops in Iraq. I would like a list of countries who would provide a country they are in armed conflict with access to nuclear weapons if they could at all prevent it.
Geez Limestone . . . that's straight out the Blackwater/XE CEO's "Why the DOD needs us . . . because we can get around all that tricky legislative stuff" Handbook. He's running around lobbying hard about how "evil" Iran is and how the administration and the DOD should be using them in a role to fight Iran because by gosh we just won't have the oversight that the U.S. military forces will have. Why not I guess, XE already works hand in hand with the CIA in the illegal state sanctioned assassination program in Pakistan.
Lots of war drum banging from a lot of folks over a country that to date hasn't been officially confirmed to have broken any IAEA provisions and if they did, it was at such a small scale it was essentially insignificant . . . but hey Hillary the War Monger says they're a "rogue nation" so it must be true right?? (Damn, this sounds so familiar). Oh wait, wait . . . they "broke laws" by not telling the IAEA in a timely fashion about certain facilities. Funny how they would act that way considering that Israel has a tendency to bomb things like that whether they're used for peaceful purposes or not. Hillary apparently doesn't know the difference between non compliance and actual violations.
So let's review:
The UN has confirmed that Iran does not have the capability enrich uranium up the levels necessary, and said back in Oct. of 2009 that Iran gave up it's nuclear ambitions 7 years ago.
The announcement of facilities has only been a "surprise" to US media and their propaganda puppets . . . U.S. intelligence says they've known about the facilities for years (again this sounds so damn familiar).
Iran has no aircraft carriers, space based weapons, strategic bombers, nothing but a regional navy, no military bases on U.S. borders, and missiles that can barely be called ballistic and have at best rudimentary guidance systems.
Oh yeah . . . hey didn't Iran decide to stop trading Oil in Dollars awhile back?? Hmmmm . . .
When is the IAEA going to be allowed to inspect the 75-200 nukes that Israel has . . . wait . . . what??
Funny thing is, political propagandist have been trying to vilify Iran on the Nuke Front for 25 years after the revolution . . if you go back and read what some of them have said, Iran should have had nukes by 1990 . . . but the Iranian leadership wasn't vilified at all when the Shah announced their nuclear intentions as early as 1974 . . . funny huh??
-
As far as Pakistan goes, yeah, we actually have plans to just "march in there and take them" if need be.
The goose steppers are missing the point here as always.
Look at what we as a nation do, and then ask yourself why other nations react the way they do.
Oh but wait, Barry W. Obama is now parroting the same Terra-ists lines and "can't let'm have nukes" lines of the previous administration and the Libratard ideologically driven useful idiots just line up and cheerlead.
Just say no to war and U.S. hegemony . . . Unless a Democrat is president.
For a guy who has been closely analyzing the situation, you seem a bit out of the loop.
1. Nations have been acting in their sole best interests since the advent of the nation-state.
2. It is not in the US's best interests to allow Iran to become another nation in possession of deployable nuclear technology.
3. Profit.
To take it a step further, and as someone who has spent countless hours and tons of banwidth closely monitoring the situation you are no doubt aware, Iran has done nothing short of attack our troops in Iraq. They have waged armed war against our troops in Iraq. I would like a list of countries who would provide a country they are in armed conflict with access to nuclear weapons if they could at all prevent it.
Geez Limestone . . . that's straight out the Blackwater/XE CEO's "Why the DOD needs us . . . because we can get around all that tricky legislative stuff" Handbook. He's running around lobbying hard about how "evil" Iran is and how the administration and the DOD should be using them in a role to fight Iran because by gosh we just won't have the oversight that the U.S. military forces will have. Why not I guess, XE already works hand in hand with the CIA in the illegal state sanctioned assassination program in Pakistan.
Lots of war drum banging from a lot of folks over a country that to date hasn't been officially confirmed to have broken any IAEA provisions and if they did, it was at such a small scale it was essentially insignificant . . . but hey Hillary the War Monger says they're a "rogue nation" so it must be true right?? (Damn, this sounds so familiar). Oh wait, wait . . . they "broke laws" by not telling the IAEA in a timely fashion about certain facilities. Funny how they would act that way considering that Israel has a tendency to bomb things like that whether they're used for peaceful purposes or not. Hillary apparently doesn't know the difference between non compliance and actual violations.
So let's review:
The UN has confirmed that Iran does not have the capability enrich uranium up the levels necessary, and said back in Oct. of 2009 that Iran gave up it's nuclear ambitions 7 years ago.
The announcement of facilities has only been a "surprise" to US media and their propaganda puppets . . . U.S. intelligence says they've known about the facilities for years (again this sounds so damn familiar).
Iran has no aircraft carriers, space based weapons, strategic bombers, nothing but a regional navy, no military bases on U.S. borders, and missiles that can barely be called ballistic and have at best rudimentary guidance systems.
Oh yeah . . . hey didn't Iran decide to stop trading Oil in Dollars awhile back?? Hmmmm . . .
When is the IAEA going to be allowed to inspect the 75-200 nukes that Israel has . . . wait . . . what??
Funny thing is, political propagandist have been trying to vilify Iran on the Nuke Front for 25 years after the revolution . . if you go back and read what some of them have said, Iran should have had nukes by 1990 . . . but the Iranian leadership wasn't vilified at all when the Shah announced their nuclear intentions as early as 1974 . . . funny huh??
How do I respond to a post that doesn't respond to mine?
Do you dispute that Iranians are involved in both supplying Iraqi insurgents and actually participating in armed combat (well, actually dressing like women, planting IEDs and hiding in schools) with our soldiers?
-
Do I dispute it?? I don't know, who is saying this??
We ever support any armed insurgencies over the course of history Limestone??
-
I still don't understand if Dax is trying to make a point of some kind or just using this thread as an opportunity to display the knowledge he has accumulated over several months of careful study.
-
People will line up to support war based almost solely on the letter that's next to the name of the president.
-
People will line up to support war based almost solely on the letter that's next to the name of the president.
No need to go to war, Israel will do the dirty work. Actual enforcement of sanctions would probably do the trick. I don't disagree with your premise of us sounding hypocritical on the issue because we are, Iran doesn't bother me with conventional weapons its the sale of arms to hezbollah, hamas, etc. Yes, this could happen with pakistan as well and I am just as concerned with that.
-
Do I dispute it?? I don't know, who is saying this??
We ever support any armed insurgencies over the course of history Limestone??
Your careful study is for crap then. Go read another Soldier of Fortune magazine.
We haven't supported any that are in direct combat with our troops, so that is a bit of a distinction, don't you think?
-
You're a good "patriot" Limestone, you'll always believe everything Fox News tells you.
-
What possible good can come from allowing Iran to have nukes, 'Pad?
:confused:
-
So Ben you would be for pre-emptive war in order to stop Iran from having Nukes??
But again, it hasn't been officially established on any level that Iran is building the bomb.
But it's good to see you'll willingly swallow the propaganda as long as a Democrat is President.
Sad how ideologically driven most Americans are.
-
You're a good "patriot" Limestone, you'll always believe everything Fox News tells you.
Or my older brother who fought Iranians in Iraq.
I know for a fact that you know US troops are engaging iranians in Iraq.
FTR, the iranians are the biggest pussies in the mideast.
-
Limestone . . . has the U.S. ever overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran??
Would the U.S. be fighting Iranians in Iraq if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq??
-
Limestone . . . has the U.S. ever overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran??
Would the U.S. be fighting Iranians in Iraq if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq??
My extensive research and monitoring indicates that US assets played a role in destabilizing their gov't, yes. See how easy it is to admit facts?
I thought you said the US wasn't fighting Iranians in Iraq? Which does your research and monitoring indicate?
-
I am just playing along Limestone, don't get your jackboots all in a mess.
So who has officially confirmed that we are "fighting" Iranians in Iraq? We're also fighting Jordanians, and Saudi Arabians, and many other non Iraqi's . . . that's what happens when you invade a country on false pretenses.
Has the U.S. ever supported "Freedom Fighters" Limestone??
-
I am just playing along Limestone, don't get your jackboots all in a mess.
So who has officially confirmed that we are "fighting" Iranians in Iraq? We're also fighting Jordanians, and Saudi Arabians, and many other non Iraqi's . . . that's what happens when you invade a country on false pretenses.
Has the U.S. ever supported "Freedom Fighters" Limestone??
meh, you admitted it. This discussion is just fruitless now. The US will never let a country we are fighting become nuclear capable. So sue them, but it seems pretty shrewd to me.
-
I didn't admit to anything in regards to Iranians . . . so could you please point to me to non U.S./non NATO sources that clarify that indeed U.S. forces are fighting directly against Iranian's supported directly by the Iranian government.
So I guess we can chalk you up as being for pre-emptive War against Iran, even though it has not been established on any official level that Iran is in fact seeking Nuclear Weapons. This sounds so familiar.
Also . . . it was a simple question, has the United States ever supported "freedom fighter" types??
-
I didn't admit to anything in regards to Iranians . . . so could you please point to me to non U.S./non NATO sources that clarify that indeed U.S. forces are fighting directly against Iranian's supported directly by the Iranian government.
So I guess we can chalk you up as being for pre-emptive War against Iran, even though it has not been established on any official level that Iran is in fact seeking Nuclear Weapons. This sounds so familiar.
Also . . . it was a simple question, has the United States ever supported "freedom fighter" types??
Unless you are a Native American, you are as an imperialist as anyone. Give back your land to those your ancestors took it from through force, or you are no better than a West Bank settler.
-
You reached deep for that Red Herring Limestone . . . I am proud of you.
-
So Ben you would be for pre-emptive war in order to stop Iran from having Nukes??
But again, it hasn't been officially established on any level that Iran is building the bomb.
But it's good to see you'll willingly swallow the propaganda as long as a Democrat is President.
Sad how ideologically driven most Americans are.
WTF are you blabbering about? I simply asked what good could possibly come from allowing Iran to have nukes. It seems to me like you're the type of guy that just has to always be complaining about something.
:dunno:
-
That's funny coming from a kid who is perpetually bitching about what K-State fans say about ku.
-
That's funny coming from a kid who is perpetually bitching about what K-State fans say about ku.
:users:
-
What a mess . . . and we're tits deep in that quagmire.
-
Iranians are the Evil Do'ers.
-
You reached deep for that Red Herring Limestone . . . I am proud of you.
tapout noted. Don't feel bad, I've owned lots of chumps.
-
You reached deep for that Red Herring Limestone . . . I am proud of you.
tapout noted. Don't feel bad, I've owned lots of chumps.
Not really Limestone . . . so got any non U.S./NATO sources to confirm that we're fighting against Iranian state sanctioned terra-ists??
Leave your stolen land, then your commentary is valid. Until then you are an Al Gore sized hypocrite.
-
:facepalm:
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”
"This regime (Israel) will one day disappear."
"Israel is doomed to be "wiped from the map" in "a war of destiny."
"The countdown for the destruction of Israel" has begun."
"Zionists are "the personification of Satan."
Ahmadinejad
I couldn't ever imagine why anyone would want Iran to have Nukes unless they want all the Jews in Israel dead.
Agreed!
-
It's not like the extremist Muslims only hate Jews, they hate all non-muslims. Israel is a more immediate threat to them, but they would certainly not stop with the destruction of Israel.
-
How can anyone so hypocritical keep posting?
Hey Mr. Gore, I told you my source. Sorry it's not Sonofalgore approved.
Now you tell me how it isn't hypocritical to live on the benefit of us imperialism while railing against it. Is it because 150 years have passed? Isn't that convinient, Mr. Gore?
-
The website doesnt look very credible but this would not suprise me one bit if true
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sabotage-key-iranian-nuclear-facility-hit/
-
Name one person who is well versed on the situation that thinks Iranians having nuclear weapons is a good idea?
Even the Russians and Chinese think it's awful.
The real threat isn't Israel getting hit (which they will). But Iran "losing" one that ends up in a container in some American port only to be detonated on the ground. Then what son of Dax rough ridin' jones?
-
i don't think dax actually supports iran having nukes. nuclear war is way up in the order of things dax hates. it's something like: nuclear war, american interventionism that leads to nuclear war, ku, liberal hypocrisy, ksu
-
i don't think dax actually supports iran having nukes. nuclear war is way up in the order of things dax hates. giving up back door cuts nuclear war, ku, liberal hypocrisy, ksu
-
i pretty much agree with LSOC. in a perfect world, no one would have nukes. in a perfectly fair world, everyone would have the same amount of nukes (or nukes per capita, idk). the iranians are (sort of right). it's not fair that they have nukes and their neighbors/enemies don't.
but in the world we actually live in, the US would be dumb as crap to advocate for a nuclear Iran. it wouldn't help the US at all.
-
The website doesnt look very credible but this would not suprise me one bit if true
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sabotage-key-iranian-nuclear-facility-hit/
stuxnet got nothing on things that go boom
-
Qaher-313 (Conqueror-313)
Are you rough ridin' kidding me?! :laugh1:
Israeli experts say the "indigenous fighter jet" Iran presented on 2 February is nothing more than a "very sleek plastic model".
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israeli-experts-dismiss-irans-qaher-fighter-claims-381841/
Looks like a scale model in flight.
http://youtu.be/B6goVKfxCuM
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/02/286841/iran-unveils-new-indigenous-fighter-jet/
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VbjLiePubAo/UQ4WAzySrWI/AAAAAAAAJdU/LMmHaRWboGw/s1600/Irans-New-Qaher-313-Stealth-Fighter3.jpg)
(http://cdn4.spiegel.de/images/image-455937-galleryV9-grye.jpg)
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-455934-galleryV9-yykh.jpg)
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-455938-galleryV9-xtii.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2EsbjWK0f9A/UQ4VlX0-c4I/AAAAAAAAJdE/whgUMmOVrEI/s1600/Irans-New-Qaher-313.jpg)
(http://rt.com/files/usa/news/iran-indigenous-fighter-qaher-296/image.jpg)
(http://rt.com/files/usa/news/iran-indigenous-fighter-qaher-296/afp-photo-mehr-news.jpg)
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Q-313-cockpit.jpg)
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2013/02/AP877993897020-635x357.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2gmNiznAYPk/UQ_kVG4GxUI/AAAAAAAABQY/UIRwfGrF0cY/s1600/Kahir313_Kokpit.png)
oh noes dax what will Obama do?!?!
-
Congrats Obama on your recent deal working towards long term peace in the middle east by limiting Iran's capabilities for decades to come.
-
Is this the "deal" with the June 30 date to make it a deal. Seems rock solid.
Someone should poster the twitter feed from the Iranian minister trashing obama after he released the "deal" he struck. It's funny.
Good news iran. You've got three more months of unsupervised nuke building.
-
Yes, today's middle east certainly resembles a region on a screaming train towards long-term-peace. If long term peace means fewer mushroom clouds, you might have a point. But a path towards actual long term peace . . . a laughable notion at this point in time. The "Middle East" is ablaze from Yemen to the Mediterranean.
If everyone just sprays their front lawn with water then the blaze wont spread
-
Isreal probably feels like a toasted marshmellow with Iran holding the stick provided by Obombma and Waffel Kerry.
-
This thread taught me that dax's hatred of war rules supreme over all his other views. Fascinating hierarchy of values.
-
If there's one thing Obama could do to make the ME worse than he already has, it's a nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, that might actually spill outside the ME which is obviously very bad.
-
Funny how things change
-
People will line up to support war based almost solely on the letter that's next to the name of the president.
:Wha:
-
oh no
-
This is some weird deja vu stuff, because when Bush was president and bitching about nukes, the other side was bitching about his nuclear policies.
Of course Iran has nukes. :ohno:
Lol at okcat “prior administration’n” dax a decade ago.
-
:lol:
-
People will line up to support war based almost solely on the letter that's next to the name of the president.
:Wha:
I've lined up to support war?
Your guy toppled one regime and gave no explanation of any kind as to why it needed to happen (a regime that had sworn off terrorism and sworn off seeking WMD's years before, and was actively fighting AQ in North Africa). Your guy tried to topple another regime and gave no discernible reason of note as to why the United States had to ship arms from Libya (the first toppled regime) to a bunch of hyper conservative radical Islamists in order to topple another relatively secular regime in Syria. The power vacuum that your guys actions created in Syria (along with hundreds of thousands of refugees) allowed ISIS to expand its control many fold.
Outside of the extreme fringe of the LibDerp Nation movement, LibDerp Nation was in full blown complicity and support.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: at resident LibDerps who always try and claim the past, particularly the very recent past just doesn't matter anymore.
It's just so very sad.
But it's still :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
dax really underestimated the gE cloud storage
-
As far as Pakistan goes, yeah, we actually have plans to just "march in there and take them" if need be.
The goose steppers are missing the point here as always.
Look at what we as a nation do, and then ask yourself why other nations react the way they do.
Oh but wait, Barry W. Obama is now parroting the same Terra-ists lines and "can't let'm have nukes" lines of the previous administration and the Libratard ideologically driven useful idiots just line up and cheerlead.
Just say no to war and U.S. hegemony . . . Unless a Democrat is president.
For a guy who has been closely analyzing the situation, you seem a bit out of the loop.
1. Nations have been acting in their sole best interests since the advent of the nation-state.
2. It is not in the US's best interests to allow Iran to become another nation in possession of deployable nuclear technology.
3. Profit.
To take it a step further, and as someone who has spent countless hours and tons of banwidth closely monitoring the situation you are no doubt aware, Iran has done nothing short of attack our troops in Iraq. They have waged armed war against our troops in Iraq. I would like a list of countries who would provide a country they are in armed conflict with access to nuclear weapons if they could at all prevent it.
Geez Limestone . . . that's straight out the Blackwater/XE CEO's "Why the DOD needs us . . . because we can get around all that tricky legislative stuff" Handbook. He's running around lobbying hard about how "evil" Iran is and how the administration and the DOD should be using them in a role to fight Iran because by gosh we just won't have the oversight that the U.S. military forces will have. Why not I guess, XE already works hand in hand with the CIA in the illegal state sanctioned assassination program in Pakistan.
Lots of war drum banging from a lot of folks over a country that to date hasn't been officially confirmed to have broken any IAEA provisions and if they did, it was at such a small scale it was essentially insignificant . . . but hey Hillary the War Monger says they're a "rogue nation" so it must be true right?? (Damn, this sounds so familiar). Oh wait, wait . . . they "broke laws" by not telling the IAEA in a timely fashion about certain facilities. Funny how they would act that way considering that Israel has a tendency to bomb things like that whether they're used for peaceful purposes or not. Hillary apparently doesn't know the difference between non compliance and actual violations.
So let's review:
The UN has confirmed that Iran does not have the capability enrich uranium up the levels necessary, and said back in Oct. of 2009 that Iran gave up it's nuclear ambitions 7 years ago.
The announcement of facilities has only been a "surprise" to US media and their propaganda puppets . . . U.S. intelligence says they've known about the facilities for years (again this sounds so damn familiar).
Iran has no aircraft carriers, space based weapons, strategic bombers, nothing but a regional navy, no military bases on U.S. borders, and missiles that can barely be called ballistic and have at best rudimentary guidance systems.
Oh yeah . . . hey didn't Iran decide to stop trading Oil in Dollars awhile back?? Hmmmm . . .
When is the IAEA going to be allowed to inspect the 75-200 nukes that Israel has . . . wait . . . what??
Funny thing is, political propagandist have been trying to vilify Iran on the Nuke Front for 25 years after the revolution . . if you go back and read what some of them have said, Iran should have had nukes by 1990 . . . but the Iranian leadership wasn't vilified at all when the Shah announced their nuclear intentions as early as 1974 . . . funny huh??
:bwpopcorn:
-
Weird how the past matters when the resident LibDerps say it does . . .
There was no Iranian Nuclear "Deal" in 2010, the previous administration hadn't dumped pallets of cash on the runway in Tehran rewarding the Iranians for taking over the U.S. Embassy (pro-tip to the constantly behind the curve Dug, the Obama administration . . . who sought ZERO approvals for any of that action, said it was the money the U.S. froze back during the Iranian hostage crisis), rewarded Iran for ramping up their terror exports across the Middle East and also paid ransom for people that Iran held at the time. Bad behavior (after 2010) got rewarded 3 times over by the previous administration.
-
We should unilaterally give Iran nukes. Dax was right the first time.
-
Weird how the past matters when the resident LibDerps say it does . . .
There was no Iranian Nuclear "Deal" in 2010, the previous administration hadn't dumped pallets of cash on the runway in Tehran rewarding the Iranians for taking over the U.S. Embassy (pro-tip to the constantly behind the curve Dug, the Obama administration . . . who sought ZERO approvals for any of that action, said it was the money the U.S. froze back during the Iranian hostage crisis), rewarded Iran for ramping up their terror exports across the Middle East and also paid ransom for people that Iran held at the time. Bad behavior (after 2010) got rewarded 3 times over by the previous administration.
so Iran stopped acting in good faith toward the shared interest with the US after 2010
got it
-
Weird how the past matters when the resident LibDerps say it does . . .
There was no Iranian Nuclear "Deal" in 2010, the previous administration hadn't dumped pallets of cash on the runway in Tehran rewarding the Iranians for taking over the U.S. Embassy (pro-tip to the constantly behind the curve Dug, the Obama administration . . . who sought ZERO approvals for any of that action, said it was the money the U.S. froze back during the Iranian hostage crisis), rewarded Iran for ramping up their terror exports across the Middle East and also paid ransom for people that Iran held at the time. Bad behavior (after 2010) got rewarded 3 times over by the previous administration.
so Iran stopped acting in good faith toward the shared interest with the US after 2010
got it
Shared interests? LOL
-
This thread is actually a great example of daxmentia. In re-reading his posts from nine years ago, one doesn’t even need a dax decoder ring at all. Like, he wasn’t calling anyone LibDerps or ChiComs or New Neo-cons or anything. He just used actual words. Amazing to see.
-
Anyone new to the pit should read this thread then read dax’s latestest maga posts. It’s 180 degrees and he won’t even address it
-
that was all before obummer and killary did some stuff...
-
You guys hadn't completely gone into perpetual meltdown whack-a-doo land 10 years ago.
-
Ooh, whack-a-doo, that’s another one. Thanks dax :thumbs:
-
You guys hadn't completely gone into perpetual meltdown whack-a-doo land 10 years ago.
You were a lot sharper back then. When was the last time you saw a neuro?
-
Only dax can read a decade old dax meltdown thread and conclude that it's everyone else that is in perpetual meltdown status.
-
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
-
ChiComJoe and perpetually enraged LibBot Nation are the ones who are in Full LibDerp freefall on their way to whack-a-doo status, guys.
-
Only dax can read a decade old dax meltdown thread and conclude that it's everyone else that is in perpetual meltdown status.
I wasn't talking about then . . . I'm talking about now.
-
You guys hadn't completely gone into perpetual meltdown whack-a-doo land 10 years ago.
You were a lot sharper back then. When was the last time you saw a neuro?
You've never been very sharp when it comes to these discussions.
-
Anyone new to the pit should read this thread then read dax’s latestest maga posts. It’s 180 degrees and he won’t even address it
180 degrees different relative to what?
Like I said, 10 years ago the your dear leader hadn't dumped a tarmac full of cash in Tehran, and Iran wasn't nearly as aggressive in exporting terror as they are now. They also had vastly less capable missile platforms etc. etc. etc.
There was also still 40K U.S. troops left in Iraq back in 2010 . . . and yet Iran has become even more aggressive since.
But remember . . . the past doesn't matter according to you guys. So weird series of dumpster diving.
-
:cry:
-
:cry:
It’s actually a pretty good case study into the ravages of dementia in our elderly
-
:cry:
It’s actually a pretty good case study into the ravages of dementia in our elderly
Your new board name is Slow Dug
-
:cry:
It’s actually a pretty good case study into the ravages of dementia in our elderly
:bawl:
-
...in the final stages they are left with only redundant lame nicknames as a defense. Do not tell them that no one thinks they are clever, it will destroy them.
-
...in the final stages they are left with only redundant lame nicknames as a defense. Do not tell them that no one thinks they are clever, it will destroy them.
Good one Slow Dug.
-
...in the final stages they are left with only redundant lame nicknames as a defense. Do not tell them that no one thinks they are clever, it will destroy them.
Good one Slow Dug.
:D
-
They may have screwed up this time...