kallend 2,026
billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Do the big white wall tires get more respect around 'da hood?
All the cool kids have Fajr-5's. The unpopular kids have to drive their mom's Fajr-2's, which are totally not cool.
All the cool kids have Fajr-5's. The unpopular kids have to drive their mom's Fajr-2's, which are totally not cool.
Amazon 7
QuoteThere are so many people who view the Palestinians as the only or main source of the problem that is simply not true
Yup I guess this guy has no issues either
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml
Iran's new hard-line president called yesterday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - the first time for many years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for the Jewish state's eradication.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html
Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would be enough to finish off Israel.
Hmmm wonder where the Palistinians are getting the ideas from to attack rather than make a lasting peace????
QuoteMy view is that Israel is the main cause of the war and the problems in that region.
So I guess all of the Arab countries that expelled ALL of their jews.... with Israel the only place for them to go.. has ZERO bearing on all of this either????
So when Iran delivers a nuke on Tel Aviv.... what do you think Israel should do about that???
billvon 2,989
>So when Iran delivers a nuke on Tel Aviv.... what do you think
>Israel should do about that???
Israel has nukes. Iran does not. So a better question is - what should _our_ response be when Israel drops a nuke on Beirut? (Just a little tactical one, of course, to convince those people to not vote for Hezbollah radicals.)
>Israel should do about that???
Israel has nukes. Iran does not. So a better question is - what should _our_ response be when Israel drops a nuke on Beirut? (Just a little tactical one, of course, to convince those people to not vote for Hezbollah radicals.)
skydyvr 0
QuoteIsrael has nukes. Iran does not. So a better question is - what should _our_ response be when Israel drops a nuke on Beirut?
"when" Israel drops a nuke on Beirut?
What is your basis for believing this will happen?
Seems you've got your thoughts a little bit backwards -- the country that DOES have them has shown restraint again and again by NOT using them, while the country that DOESN'T have them promises to "wipe Israel off the map". Yet, you think it's fine for that country to obtain them.
That's some goofy thinking.
. . =(_8^(1)
billvon 2,989
>What is your basis for believing this will happen?
Same basis others are using to imagine Iran first developing a nuclear weapon then dropping it on Tel Aviv. In other words - imagination.
>while the country that DOESN'T have them promises to "wipe Israel off the map"
Just like the USSR promised to "bury us." They had nukes; they didn't use them. You think a country that uses the same sort of overblown rhetoric that does NOT have nukes is more of a threat than a country that uses it and DID have nukes?
>Yet, you think it's fine for that country to obtain them.
Nope. Never said that.
Same basis others are using to imagine Iran first developing a nuclear weapon then dropping it on Tel Aviv. In other words - imagination.
>while the country that DOESN'T have them promises to "wipe Israel off the map"
Just like the USSR promised to "bury us." They had nukes; they didn't use them. You think a country that uses the same sort of overblown rhetoric that does NOT have nukes is more of a threat than a country that uses it and DID have nukes?
>Yet, you think it's fine for that country to obtain them.
Nope. Never said that.
skydyvr 0
Quote>What is your basis for believing this will happen?
Same basis others are using to imagine Iran first developing a nuclear weapon then dropping it on Tel Aviv. In other words - imagination.
Yep, we can imagine anything we want, despite real evidence to the contrary.
Quote>while the country that DOESN'T have them promises to "wipe Israel off the map"
Just like the USSR promised to "bury us." They had nukes; they didn't use them. You think a country that uses the same sort of overblown rhetoric that does NOT have nukes is more of a threat than a country that uses it and DID have nukes?
I know you realize just how close we/they came to using them. Want to go through that again, this time with an even zanier group?
Quote>Yet, you think it's fine for that country to obtain them.
Nope. Never said that.
You recently outlined conditions that it would be just fine -- something like "best if nobody had them, next best if only the US has them, next best, everyone has them". Sorry if I missed something.
. . =(_8^(1)
billvon 2,989
>Want to go through that again, this time with an even zanier group?
If you had lived in the 1950's, and said that you thought Russians were a saner group than the Iranians - you would have been blacklisted - or more likely just ignored for being a nut. Everyone knew Russians were insane zealots who would stop at nothing to spread communism throughout the world at any cost.
Our enemies are always the worst, most insane, most inhumane people out there. There's a good reason for this; Machiavelli's The Prince gives a good explanation of why it's important to make people believe this. Time reveals that they're really a lot like us - just with a loudmouth bullying government. Since we have one of those ourselves, perhaps best not to play the "they're the most crazy, and we really, really mean it this time" game.
>You recently outlined conditions that it would be just fine -- something
>like "best if nobody had them, next best if only the US has them, next
>best, everyone has them". Sorry if I missed something.
Correct. It's fine if no one has them. Less fine if only the US has them. Even less fine if everyone has them. Worst of all if only our enemies have them (at least from our perspective.) Which is basically the opposite of what you claimed I said.
If you had lived in the 1950's, and said that you thought Russians were a saner group than the Iranians - you would have been blacklisted - or more likely just ignored for being a nut. Everyone knew Russians were insane zealots who would stop at nothing to spread communism throughout the world at any cost.
Our enemies are always the worst, most insane, most inhumane people out there. There's a good reason for this; Machiavelli's The Prince gives a good explanation of why it's important to make people believe this. Time reveals that they're really a lot like us - just with a loudmouth bullying government. Since we have one of those ourselves, perhaps best not to play the "they're the most crazy, and we really, really mean it this time" game.
>You recently outlined conditions that it would be just fine -- something
>like "best if nobody had them, next best if only the US has them, next
>best, everyone has them". Sorry if I missed something.
Correct. It's fine if no one has them. Less fine if only the US has them. Even less fine if everyone has them. Worst of all if only our enemies have them (at least from our perspective.) Which is basically the opposite of what you claimed I said.
Skyrad 0
QuoteLooks like Hezbollah miscalculated and now will feel the effects of Israeli Armor and Infantry.
It would really suck to be them.(Hezbollah)
Looks like Hizbollah are giving the Israeli army hell. Maybe its Isreal that has miscalculated.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
QuoteI know you realize just how close we/they came to using them. Want to go through that again, this time with an even zanier group?
There's also how OFTEN we came so close, particularly in the early years! And it wasn't the Russians who were the zany ones! McArthur wanted to use Nukes in Korea, the only thing stopping him was finding a suitable target! Churchill as British PM was pressuring America to provoke some conflict with Russia to provide an excuse to nuke Russia while America had a numerical advantage in bombs! In effect, "Nuke them into extinction before they can really nuke us"!
Then there's the anecdote of Kruschev berating a visiting American Senator, then suddenly asking where he came from. The Senator said Minneapolis & Kruschev had him point it out on a map. Kruschev drew a circle around it in blue pencil saying "That's to remind me to spare your home when the missiles fly"!
Eisenhower came to power determined to integrate nukes into the American tactical arsenal. By the end of his presidency, the greatest military genius of the 20th century, having carefully studied the subject, had produced a plan: "Fire off every single nuke in America's armoury together, then sit back & wait to die". This plan was ridiculed by Kennedy when he ascended to the Presidency, until it was realised that this was the ONLY FEASIBLE PLAN. This plan, along with NOT defending our populations, is what became known as MAD.
Nukes have in fact kept the peace... In those countries which had them! Nukes have even caused peace as countries acquired them. The reason for this is that national leaders contemplating war against a "Nuclear" enemy, quickly realise that they'll likely lose more than they might gain, so the proposed war becomes worthless (& hence doesn't happen).
It's actually the NRA argument writ large. "Someone contemplating armed robbery, doesn't pick an armed victim".
In the case of Iran, you should seperate rhetoric from actions. "Talk is Cheap". If Iran had a nuclear capability, then in considering nuking Israel it would have to consider the response... Just as Russia & America had to 50 years earlier.
Then there's the "Nation of Fanatics" argument, suggesting that the entire country would happily turn Suicide-Bomber. The answer to this was beautifully captured in Reagan's "Ivan & Anya, Jim & Sally" speech of 1984. It applies just as well to Iran. During the cold war, "Commies" were viewed as fanatics.
Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
falxori 0
QuoteDo you ever try to use facts or just your version of propaganda?
ask yourself the same question.
QuoteWho has killed more civilians? Hamas or the Israeli government?
tough question, especially when ALL hamas terrorists (and hezbollah too) are civilians. they do not exactly follow international law that states that all combatants should be clearly marked and wear uniform. not to mention not operating from within civilian areas.
that question should be who tries to kill more civilians and what are the targets.
QuoteWho has detained (kidnapped in a way) more people from the other side? Israelis or Palestinians
again you look at the effect and not at the reason as you often do. there are many palestinians in Israeli jails because there are many palestinian terrorists who are plotting to blow up Israeli busses.
i'm sure you'd be happy if they were free to do as they wish. but they are in jail because they belong there.
the best thing would have been if they were in PA jails, but if the PA doesn't stop them, Israel will.
QuoteWho has broken more international law?
International law is a big phrase. lets be more specific...
you probably mean the fact that civilians get hurt. well go back one step to where the palestinians use them as human shields and they themmselves don't wear anything that will differentiate them from their civilians shields...
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
Darius11 12
QuoteInternational law is a big phrase. lets be more specific...
you probably mean the fact that civilians get hurt. well go back one step to where the palestinians use them as human shields and they themmselves don't wear anything that will differentiate them from their civilians shields...
Why would anyone ware a Uniform when Israel has a find and assassinate policy?
You really need to have a more realistic view of what the Israeli government is doing.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Why would anyone ware a Uniform when Israel has a find and assassinate policy?
You really need to have a more realistic view of what the Israeli government is doing.
You really need to have a more realistic view of what the Israeli government is doing.
Darius the rest of the true soldiers in this world do wear unifornms so that thay may be distinguished from the civilian population.
Furthermore when a soldier is caught not wearing a uniform he is considered a spy, or war criminal to be killed summarily.
To not wear a uniform jeapordizes the entire population in an area of conflict.
Jimbo 0
QuoteWhy would anyone ware a Uniform when Israel has a find and assassinate policy?
Care to address the 'human shields' argument?
QuoteYou really need to have a more realistic view of what the Israeli government is doing.
And you really could use a more realistic view of what the Palistinian terrorists are doing.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Do the big white wall tires get more respect around 'da hood?
Whitewalls are passe in the 'hood in '06. It's large diameter shiny wheels with super low profile tires this year. The low profile tires must be harder to target.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.