Iran tested weapon

[Lilb]

Originally Posted by Ace42

Patriot Act

?????? What do you meant?
You think the Patriot Act is taking care of us?

[Tone Capone]

Originally Posted by Lilb

I think that the U.S. should worry about taking care of the U.S.

Hey you know that a confrontation with Iran is coming, and they will be taken care of. Do you think it's NOT going to happen?

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by Lilb

?????? What do you meant?
You think the Patriot Act is taking care of us?

In a purely euphemistic sense.

[Jasonik]

Yeah, like Bush is taking care of business in the Middle East.

[Jasonik]

Echewta, ever play chess? Ever play man to man defense? Ever keep your cards close to your chest? Ever use a fakeout play to catch your opponent by surprise? Ever not use a fakeout play because it would be sneaky or dishonest?

Is that unspoken motive only allowed for us or can other countries have an unspoken movite as well?

You want me to pass judgement? You aren't naive enough to think that countries don't, (and shouldn't) covertly work for their best interests?

Now that we live in the country next to Iran, how are we able to see things differently? Are we better able to attack Iran now than before?

Yes, it's easier to attack, but this is hopefully a deterrent since now they know we won't hesitate to attack.

Preemptive for false reasons (lied, didn't lie, bad intel, policitcal reasons, congress said ok, etc.) makes you optimistic about our government motives and steps ahead?

There are sophisticated and brilliant military & geopolitical strategists at work at the highest levels of our government. To dismiss them as shortsighted madmen who would pull off a move as bold as this for mere trifles is beyond pessimistic. Point taken that the present action is more hawkish than most Americans are willing to stomach, but I take you back to chess. You will NEVER win a game without losing some of your pieces.

[Lilb]

Originally Posted by Tone Capone

Hey you know that a confrontation with Iran is coming, and they will be taken care of. Do you think it's NOT going to happen?

I hope not...we have better things to spend our money on.

[Tone Capone]

Originally Posted by Lilb

I hope not...we have better things to spend our money on.

Yeah I hope not too, but it's going to happen... ESPECIALLY if a certain somebody is running things.

[Lilb]

Originally Posted by Tone Capone

Yeah I hope not too, but it's going to happen... ESPECIALLY if a certain somebody is running things.

What a way to look at things-what do you really want it to happen? You keep on pressing the issue.Do you know something we don't know?
You think that a certain somebody will be back to run things?
God save us all, and if he does......I wouldn't mind being blown up or something....

[Señor Stino]

yeah, now Capone has me curious aswell, why will there be a military confrontation with Iran ? do you also know when it will be?

things can change, and they can change fast

oh, and btw, you CAN win a chess game without losing pieces :-)

[TheWedge]

Originally Posted by Señor Stino

oh, and btw, you CAN win a chess game without losing pieces :-)

Or you can not play games altogether, ensuring you keep all of your pieces.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by Señor Stino

yeah, now Capone has me curious aswell, why will there be a military confrontation with Iran ? do you also know when it will be?

things can change, and they can change fast

Well, being the future, it is anyone's guess. But, judging by the almost psychic predictions of Noam Chomsky about a decade ago, it strikes me as being quite likely. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq. The one thing they all have in common is the wet-black stuff. And specifically, in the wet-black stuff that is primarily referenced to in numerous CIA and industrial analysis going back for well over a decade.

They have been planning this for decades, I don't think a little thing like a change of President will effect the end-game.

[Señor Stino]

don't know about that Ace, I am almost certain that we will not see an invasion of Iran within the next precidency, and that chance only gets bigger if Kerry beats Bush, in my opinion that is.

and by the way, where will they find another hundredthousand troops, willingly to engage (is that spelled correctly,?) in another "war against terror", unless the administration finds a good reason to invade a country, it won't be easy to pull of "a second Iraq", people aren't stupid

for what that I understand a lot of US GI's in Iraq thought they would be long home by now, and are getting tired of fighting, of being in a war. These guys cant be motivated to go on "a mission" in Iran.

[Jasonik]

Originally Posted by Señor Stino

oh, and btw, you CAN win a chess game without losing pieces :-)

Originally Posted by TheWedge

Or you can not play games altogether, ensuring you keep all of your pieces.

Sorry, my bad..."You can't win a chess game unless you're willing to lose some of your pieces."

Would it be better to have to make a pact with your opponent before the game, not to take pieces, but to only try to checkmate? Would you relax your defenses? Would you be wary of an opponent who keeps positioning himself to take your pieces even though you have 'agreed' not to? Like it or not there are matches being played all over the globe, and folding up the board and refusing to play with untrustworthy opponents is never an option.

This dynamic is the basis and downfall of diplomacy and negotiation. The problem being the other person cannot always be trusted.

[Ace42]

Originally Posted by Señor Stino

don't know about that Ace, I am almost certain that we will not see an invasion of Iran within the next precidency, and that chance only gets bigger if Kerry beats Bush, in my opinion that is.

and by the way, where will they find another hundredthousand troops, willingly to engage (is that spelled correctly,?) in another "war against terror", unless the administration finds a good reason to invade a country, it won't be easy to pull of "a second Iraq", people aren't stupid

for what that I understand a lot of US GI's in Iraq thought they would be long home by now, and are getting tired of fighting, of being in a war. These guys cant be motivated to go on "a mission" in Iran.

Give it another 5-10 years, a few terrorist attacks which have NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAN, generally pissed off people who have an even worse quality of life because of spiralling oil costs, more people pushed into military service.

"It will be all over by Christmas" - didn't the US learn anything from two world wars? Nope, not even Vietnam. There'll be more fresh meat, just like there was for this ridiculous joke of a 'war' mark my words.

[TheWedge]

Originally Posted by Jasonik

Sorry, my bad..."You can't win a chess game unless you're willing to lose some of your pieces."

Would it be better to have to make a pact with your opponent before the game, not to take pieces, but to only try to checkmate? Would you relax your defenses? Would you be wary of an opponent who keeps positioning himself to take your pieces even though you have 'agreed' not to? Like it or not there are matches being played all over the globe, and folding up the board and refusing to play with untrustworthy opponents is never an option.

This dynamic is the basis and downfall of diplomacy and negotiation. The problem being the other person cannot always be trusted.

Who said the "other player" was the one not adhearing to the rules?
Isn't it possible that you first positioned your players to take out theirs?
So, if you didn't agree to play the game in the first place MAYBE their wouldn't be an issue.

[Jasonik]

Originally Posted by TheWedge

Who said the "other player" was the one not adhearing to the rules?
Isn't it possible that you first positioned your players to take out theirs?
So, if you didn't agree to play the game in the first place MAYBE their wouldn't be an issue.

What is the 'issue' you speak of?

[TheWedge]

Originally Posted by Jasonik

What is the 'issue' you speak of?

OOPS!
Sorry.
Maybe there wouldn't be an issue.

Meaning, if you weren't seen as a "cheat" to begin with, the other player wouldn't be positioning his pieces that way.

[Señor Stino]

let's stop the comparison with the chess game for a minut plz, it's getting too hard :-)

hmm Ace, don't know, the number of "generally pissed off people" will be smaller, and certainly the number of pissed off people who are willingly to go to another war, I think.

i dont think people, or american people, have that much hatred within them, and a new (or a 2nd bush) administration will just not be able to pull of the same money trick twice to fool the nation (world) I believe

[ASsman]

Meh, fuck it. *ASsman moves to Canada*.

[Tone Capone]

NO! I don't have any info that you don't... that was dumb of you to even ask that. I'm just using common sense. With the rhetoric against Iran increasing, it's only common sense that a confrontation with them is coming and when it does happen, they will be taken care of.

[ASsman]

Yah, if people dont tell their congressmen what the fuck they want. You have to be like, BITCH YOU BEST VOTE THIS WAR TO THE GROUND, or your not getting re-elected motherfucker.

[Señor Stino]

that's what the american people thought in the 60s aswell, the confrontation with the evil redskis

[Tone Capone]

Originally Posted by ASsman

Yah, if people dont tell their congressmen what the fuck they want. You have to be like, BITCH YOU BEST VOTE THIS WAR TO THE GROUND, or your not getting re-elected motherfucker.

LOL!!! goos way to do it.

I'm torn though, I don't want them having those weapons... as stereotypical as this is, I think that country is crazy. They'll use those weapons quick, and then crazy ass israel will get crazy too and then BOOM!!! I wouldn't want to be stuck in Iran for 20 years either... I think a confrontation is coming though.

[ASsman]

WHAT ABOUT KOREA!!

[Tone Capone]

Originally Posted by ASsman

WHAT ABOUT KOREA!!

What about Korea? How come everyone on this board replies to opinions with "what about..."? We'll have to see what happens with Korea.

[Ace42]

It is called egalitarianism, it is pretty much the antithesis of hypocrisy and double-standards.

[Tone Capone]

Originally Posted by Ace42

It is called egalitarianism, it is pretty much the antithesis of hypocrisy and double-standards.

interesting... yet somehow, not interesting.... which in itself is ~interesting~

[Señor Stino]

Originally Posted by Tone Capone

LOL!!! goos way to do it.

I'm torn though, I don't want them having those weapons... as stereotypical as this is, I think that country is crazy. They'll use those weapons quick, and then crazy ass israel will get crazy too and then BOOM!!! I wouldn't want to be stuck in Iran for 20 years either... I think a confrontation is coming though.

what exactly makes you think Iran is a "craaazy" country?, do you even know shit about that country?
what makes other atomicpowers non-crazy

your theory is bullox,

[ASsman]

N Korea threatens US with first strike

Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up

Jonathan Watts in Pyongyang
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.

Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/arti...889679,00.html

Poopy face....

[Señor Stino]

your point being?