again samuel, i know you are just trollin' but i will play along...those comments were made not based exclusively on the hill-dog quotes, but rather the overall sabre-rattling attitude i am seeing. they are unrelated to my response to your request for evidence of our government making threats against iran.
when is the last time hill-dog threatened to "obliterate" mexico samuel? when is the last time obama threatened canada saying "all options are on the table"? this post really exemplifies why you are one of the more dishonest posters in this forum samuel. as i pointed out already, one of the hill-dog quotes was from two months ago...you troll. ive noticed w/ the obamabots that much like civil liberties issues, "moral righteousneess" only seems to matter when a republican is in office. when a democrat is in office they mock and demean people who are concerned about those issues.
Just remember, right now the Iranian people don't hate the American/Israeli people and don't want to have any conflict with the American/Israeli people. If you ask the average Iranian what they think, they will tell you they have way more and way bigger problems to worry about than what Israelis do in Israel. Right now, the Iranian people are begging Americans to say no to American government/rulers. Out of sight out of mind I guess.
Well, our government's mostly democratic, and no-one's apologized for the embassy hijacking or Operation Ajax yet; so I think things are pretty much exactly where everyone kind of wants them.
I believe the Iranian people are quite united in their support for the nuclear program, so I'm not sure their opinion of the US or Israel really matters.
First, as I've already discussed, the Pakistans get aid because we can't afford them to collapse explicitly because they have nukes. The fact that the Pakistanis have nukes is something that hinders us. It's a good example of why Iran shouldn't have them either from our perspective - ideally, neither country would have nukes, but we'll settle for limiting it to just Iran. Secondly, you're acting like we don't understand why the Iranians want nukes. I've gone over it. So has Deckard. I understand that they want nukes, and from their perspective, they have very good reasons to want them. That doesn't matter, because I am loyal to the United States, not Iran. Is it arbitrary? Hypocritical? Perhaps. But if ensuring that America is better off makes me a hypocrite, fine. I'll accept it. And whatever glynch spouts, America is better off with Iran not having nukes as opposed to them having it. So, say, if Pakistan actually did collapse and devolve into civil war, you wouldn't advocate military force to ensure that the nukes don't fall into the wrong hands? Don't get me wrong. I know perfectly well that to advocate what I do without being willing to fight myself is wrong. However, the recruiters have told me I can't join until December and more likely not until February 2013, and obviously I'm not giving you personal details as towards why. I'm hardly surprised. Don't really feel like arguing over it, but have you read Hitchen's work on the man?
And to be clear, let's repeat again, this quote is one of the "all options are on the table" standard boilerplate variety that basically commits to nothing, which you citing as evidence of a recent decision to launch the missiles immediately. Paultard, heal thyself. Edit: I've got a proposition for you. Instead of making this the standard joseph mama M.O. (logging on at midnight, firing of 2-3 captain morgan & coke fueled posts in a row to smite your social and intellectual betters...)....why don't we place a wager on your powers of prognostication so you can profit from your prescience and prowess? I'll bet that the US will not attack Iran's nuclear facilities within the next six months - that's a suitably short term arrangement, n'est-ce pas? If they do, then I'll donate 50 dollars to the charity of your choice. If the US doesn't, you have to carry my "Donate to Oxfam" signature link as a stigmata of failure, humiliation, and crushing defeat for the ensuing six months. What say you? This is a golden opportunity for you to hang a high -profile scalp on your wall, next to your North Harris County CC diploma... best not pass it up.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WeUxfGZiORs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
yes samuel, b/c we go around telling every country that we will "obliterate" them and that "all options are on the table". and ill repeat for the 3rd time samuel, i did not exclusively cite the "all options are on the table" quote as evidence of a recent decision to launch the missiles immediately. you specifically asked me who in the administration was threatening iran and i provided you w/ several examples. all you are doing right now is being a dishonest troll. god you are such a dork. here we are once again...someone who averages over 10 posts/day and admits to checking into clutchfans about once an hour while at "work" criticizing someone who averages about 2.5 posts/day and checks in once or twice/day. and samuel, find me any posts in this thread that i have made at "midnight". what are you talking about "midnight"? and even if i did, what does it matter? why do so many of our little back-and-forths end up at this idiocy? it seems like everytime you know you have no legitimate argument you just start going off on some tired, lame diatribe about how many times i post or what time i post, and even then you arent even accurate. you have no leg to stand on, but since you are the one who started the argument you cant let it go...its pathetic. samuel, ive yet to put a timetable on anything - again, im simply pointing out the obvious, which is the sabre-rattling attitude that this administration has taken towards iran. why do you obama-bots get so upset when people point out the obvious? and for the record, i did go to north harris county cc for a couple years, but i did not get either of my degrees from there. but so what if i did get a degree from north harris - it doesnt change the content of what i am saying. EDIT: i dont drink liquor either, so there is yet another example of you talking out of your ass.
So, I'm scanning this garden variety "jo mama rages against the elites!" spittle-fleced rant and can't find anything with respect to my proposal. This forces me to conclude - for the official, internet record - that you are too much of a coward/to internet proud to make what effectively amounts to a cost free wager on your part, that would offer you the dual possibility of triumphing over one of your perceived internemeses and for doing $50 worth of good. ....unsurprising, given the corner you have painted yourself in. Game over. Insert coin. ..oh wait.... Too bad, if anybody here needs to tip a glass to chillax a bit, it's you, chief jay strongnuts.
Sorry to accuse you of being in support of the Vietnam War. I did not know your position on this one way or the other. I would also be upset if someone falsely accused me of that. As far as Iran I don't view it as a threat to the US except perhaps economically wrt to the price of oil. Constantly viewing various countries around the world that aren't that powerful as big time threats is so reminsicient to me of the whole Vietnam Era. At least then there were arguably major countries behind Vietnam, Russian and China, while Iran and Iraq are not in that league. I reject the talking point that the Iranians are so insane they seek self annihilation, though it is effective spin to promote Iran as a threat or a country we need to attack. I join you in not being a big fan of their theocracy and the state of civil liberties. Do you really think Iran will attack the US or even Israel? If so, I think you have fallen a bit too much for neo-con propaganda. Agreed Iraq was not a serious threat nor is Iran. I agree Duya's blunder made Iran stronger as it placed a friendly regime in Baghdad. Constant threats to attack Iran and the recent nearby example in Iraq give Iran every reason to get nukes for defense. Iran is walking a tight rope, the more our threats, the more they want nukes for defense and the more they try to thus defend themselves, the more paranoid it makes us and Israel. I agree nuclear proliferation especially in the Middle East is troublesome. It should be noted that Israel started it. The US is the leading exponent of keeping and modernizing its own nukes and this type of hypocrisy shows a lack of seriousness wrt to proliferation. Also it should be noted that the US constantly encourages Saudi as a proxy to harass Iran and the US has been destabilizing Pakistan, both very bad ideas.
Iranian people have been drowning in their own f***-up since 1979, they've hardly had time to breathe let alone apologize for anything. Those people took a few dozen Americans hostage for a while, but they've taken 50 million+ Iranians hostage for over 30 years now. Things are exaxtly where the Iranian government and America wants it. Iranian people have no say in the actions that are leading to the destruction of their country. That's what's up.
your "proposal" is stupid and gross. you want to make a bet on when we will attack another country. that is pathetic, even by your standards. samuel, you are the one who chases me around constantly starting arguments w/ me. just look at this thread - all you have been doing is chasing me around. you obviously perceive me as your internemeses that you must do "e-battle" with. to me you are just a gnat. you are the one in denial about all the sabre-rattling wrt iran, samuel. you have once again started an argument w/ me that you were in the wrong about from the outset and as usual, you are too much a dishonest coward to admit you are wrong. as usual, you have turned to making comments about posting habits and college education - its trollish, boring and predictable...but thats samuel for ya! you are the one chasing me around arguing w/ me. perhaps you are the one who needs to "chillax", little munchkin. what a sad, pathetic, short-statured life you lead - checking into clutchfans once an hour to start arguments w/ strangers. trying to make bets w/ people over when your country will start a war. criticizing people for their posting habits (and not even accurately, i might add) while you average over 10 posts/day. does the lollipop guild know how much time you waste at work arguing w/ strangers on the internets munchkin?
Funnily enough, here's you in the NBA dish whining about some stupid Tracy McGrady bet that you are crowing about winning, just a few hours ago, I guess as you sip your mornin' virgin mary. NIce lecture, at the end, btw, about fiscal responsibility. Well-played. Flush with success, you'd figure that the erstwhile young teetotaller from Tomball would take the chance to trucknutz his taunter...by doubling down a sterling stake on his geopolitical geniusnessitude...with a friendly meaningless interwager. But no, the silly Paulista is pussing out in a palpably pusillanimous fashion. Come on, step up. My charitable donation can be directed to the temperance-related organization of your choice!
How could you not know that? I've made numerous posts about it over the years, several in threads you were involved in. At any rate, I disagree that we are pushing Iran to develop atomic weapons as a response to our policies. My opinion is that the theocrats would be pushing for them, regardless, because that's just how crazy they are. This is nothing about the Iranian peope, but rather about what I regard as their mad government, awash in religious extremism, and busy rigging elections, jailing, or worse, those who disagree with them with trumped up charges. Turning women into chattel, in a country that a few decades ago had some of the most freedom for women in the region, regardless of how awful the Shah's rule was. Working hard to develop atomic weapons not so much as a response to us, but because they are religious zealots who see their destiny as bringing their religious theology to every corner of the region, and they see those weapons as one of their tickets for doing that. But other than that, heck, they're just like everyone else!
