We Cannot Allow Iran to Make NUKES.

[Genghis Pwn]

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the administration believes that al-Qaida leaders are being sheltered in Iran.

He also scoffed at Tehran's assertions that its nuclear program is exclusively designed for peaceful power-generating purposes. "We continue to have concerns that a nation that is awash in gas and oil would seek to produce peaceful nuclear energy," he said.

Fleischer alleged that Iran "flares off," that is burns as a waste product, more natural gas than the electrical energy it would produce from nuclear reactors.

The escalation of tensions comes amid a burgeoning debate within the administration about what policy the United States should adopt toward a government with which Washington has had no diplomatic relations for nearly 25 years.

Senator Biden, appearing on NBC's "Today" show, said the White House should take a go-slow approach on Iran and first finish its military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We've got a long way to go there," Biden said of Iraq.

Still, "We know they (Iranian leaders) are developing a nuclear weapons program," Biden added. "They've been doing that for the last 10 years, although the International Atomic Energy Agency is in there." Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the White House, Fleischer said administration officials "are pressing Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, we are pressing them not to harbor terrorists." Asked how Iran had responded on each of these efforts, Fleischer said, "Insufficiently."

whole article (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030527_681.html)



http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030528/i/1054123583.3221323808.jpg

We cannot allow crazed religious fanatics like this to control nuclear arsenals. We should get the best intel we can, then confront them. If they won't give up their "peaceful nuclear" power plans, it's time to take them out.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

We cannot allow crazed religious fanatics like this to control nuclear arsenals. We should get the best intel we can, then confront them. If they won't give up their "peaceful nuclear" power plans, it's time to take them out.
I agree. I recommend a coup against the Bush administration. ;)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tricky

I agree. I recommend a coup against the Bush administration. ;)


Sigh, yet another armchair warrior. How boring. And he's not in the military himself because...

Looks like he's got a cute daughter, though. I wonder if she's easy.

[Genghis Pwn]

Tricky, please stop trolling. :o

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Tricky, please stop trolling. :o

Ah, so you have freedom of speech but he doesn't? Interesting, though predictable.

Can I date your daughter? She's hot.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Tricky, please stop trolling. :o
It was hardly trolling. I added the smilie to indicate that I don't hold this opinion myself, but I think you could find a large number of people who think Bush is religious fanatic, and he has his finger on the button of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Also, he has proven that he will attack for specious reasons. He makes me a LOT more nervous than anyone in Iran.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Sundog



Sigh, yet another armchair warrior. How boring. And he's not in the military himself because...

Looks like he's got a cute daughter, though. I wonder if she's easy.

Hey Sundog, why don't you watch your mouth. I fought in the first gulf war, and just came back from Afghanistan. That is not my daughter. One more ignorant, unprovoked attacked like this and you will be ignored and reported to mods.

Have a nice day.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Hey Sundog, why don't you watch your mouth. I fought in the first gulf war, and just came back from Afghanistan. That is not my daughter. One more ignorant, unprovoked attacked like this and you will be ignored and reported to mods.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, it's getting better and better. :D

How can you ignore me and report me to the mods at the same time? Seems rather contradictory to me. I do advise you to put me on ignore, though.

I INVITE you to report me to the moderators, right now. See where it gets you, fascist.

You right-wing nutbars are all the same. You think freedom of speech only applies to YOU. If you can't stand the heat, well, you know.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Sundog


Ah, so you have freedom of speech but he doesn't? Interesting, though predictable.

Can I date your daughter? She's hot.

Hey Sundog, I won the challenge you and I had going about the space shuttle. It was the commie-enviro foam that brought it down. I just read the new NASA reports on it.

Now, according to our agreement, you said you would put a quote I make in your signature block for a full week. You ready to acknowledge that I won and fulfill the challenge? I have the quote ready for you to cut and paste.

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Sundog, I won the challenge you and I had going about the space shuttle. It was the commie-enviro foam that brought it down. I just read the new NASA reports on it.

Now, according to our agreement, you said you would put a quote I make in your signature block for a full week. You ready to acknowledge that I won and fulfill the challenge? I have the quote ready for you to cut and paste.

JK

Hiya Jedi! :D

Naah, you forget the details. Evidence shows that this was one of the OLD tanks, without the CommieFoam(c).

Glad to see you back.

[Genghis Pwn]

PM sent to mods.

Sundog is now on my ignore list. What a jerk.

I thought this forum was for rational debate, not stupid, ad hom personal attacks and name calling.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Sundog


Hiya Jedi! :D

Naah, you forget the details. Evidence shows that this was one of the OLD tanks, without the CommieFoam(c).

Glad to see you back.

Quote--"Kinetic energies of a 2 1/2 or 3-pound hunk of foam when it's traveling 700 feet per second -- that's high school physics." (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html)

Quote--"Investigators' working theory on the accident is that damage to the leading edge of Columbia's left wing -- perhaps caused by insulating foam falling off the external tank and striking the wing on liftoff -- allowed superheated air to breach the spacecraft on re-entry, leading to the breakup. The board plans to publish its final report by August." (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/columbia/1910760)

I won fair and square. Ready to apply my new quote I designed for your signature block for 1 week? :D

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



I won fair and square. Ready to apply my new quote I designed for your signature block for 1 week? :D

JK

Better watch it, or whatsis-name will report you to the mods for hijacking his thread.

Your quotes are accepted, and completely beside the point. It was the OLD foam on this tank, not the new foam.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Sundog


Better watch it, or whatsis-name will report you to the mods for hijacking his thread.

Your quotes are accepted, and completely beside the point. It was the OLD foam on this tank, not the new foam.

It was the new commie enviro-foam.

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It was the new commie enviro-foam.

JK

:D

In a daily changing universe, it's nice to see that some things never change.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
PM sent to mods.

Sundog is now on my ignore list. What a jerk.

I thought this forum was for rational debate, not stupid, ad hom personal attacks and name calling.

You will let us know what the result of your PM is, won't you?

Yes, I'm a jerk. And I just LIVE to give people like you high blood pressure.

[hal bidlack]

This thread was reported to the moderators. Upon reading it, I find no violations of the JREF rules. True, some of the posts are more 'in your face' than I prefer, but they do not violate the rules.

If anyone is really to blame, it's this Commie Envirofoam guy. (I confess, that in 45 years on this Earth, that is the very first time the words "commie envirofoam" have escaped my lips.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread hijacking...

[Genghis Pwn]

Sigh, yet another armchair warrior. How boring. And he's not in the military himself because...

Looks like he's got a cute daughter, though. I wonder if she's easy.



Asking if my daughter is easy and calling me names is an appropriate response to a thread about politics and nuclear weapons, huh, hal?

O---kay.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This thread was reported to the moderators. Upon reading it, I find no violations of the JREF rules. True, some of the posts are more 'in your face' than I prefer, but they do not violate the rules.

If anyone is really to blame, it's this Commie Envirofoam guy. (I confess, that in 45 years on this Earth, that is the very first time the words "commie envirofoam" have escaped my lips.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread hijacking...

Thank you, Hal. Out of courtesy to you, and ONLY to you, I'll back off the insults.

Learn anything today about free speech, Genghis? :p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20030528/i/1054123583.3221323808.jpg

We cannot allow crazed religious fanatics like this to control nuclear arsenals. We should get the best intel we can, then confront them. If they won't give up their "peaceful nuclear" power plans, it's time to take them out.

The Iranian nuclear program is based in Tehran University and is pretty far along. I also believe that they are using centrifuges to enrich uranium in a new facility they just built so they are weaponizing.

You see, the Persians believe that this is their last gasp. They know their internal populations long to westernize. What that will bring to Persia is a Jewish influence that they simply detest.

They also know that the only way you can deal with the United States is with nuclear weapons. That is the direction these states will be headed in terms of security policy.

I would advocate the destabilizing of Iran or a direct attack because they have lost their grip on reality and are a threat to the entire planet, along with the Daffy the Duck man in North Korea.

Now, you had mentioned something about Saddam's mobile BW labs in another thread and people laughed at you for it. Don't be dismayed by that. The problem is that US intelligence simply isn't looking in the right places. They have to think about the problem.

Let me guess...the mobile labs were decontaminated with bleach or heavy soap. Check the manufacturing plates and ask yourself where have I seen this before? The design is so familiar, isn't it? I mean, when has Iraq 'prototyped' anything of unconventional military value? It seems obvious they had help. The answers are right there if you look for them.

When the BW is processed, how is it stored? It is very easy if you think about it.

That is really all I can contribute here on those issues but if you want to go into further detail about it PM me.

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hal bidlack

If anyone is really to blame, it's this Commie Envirofoam guy. (I confess, that in 45 years on this Earth, that is the very first time the words "commie envirofoam" have escaped my lips.)


Good Lord Hal, I'm older than you. How depressing. :p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This thread was reported to the moderators. Upon reading it, I find no violations of the JREF rules. True, some of the posts are more 'in your face' than I prefer, but they do not violate the rules.

If anyone is really to blame, it's this Commie Envirofoam guy. (I confess, that in 45 years on this Earth, that is the very first time the words "commie envirofoam" have escaped my lips.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread hijacking...

Hal, the commie enviro-foam problem is what brought down the space shuttle. You see, there was such a proactive enviro-mindset at NASA that they sacrificed the safety of the astronauts by using a new environmentally 'friendly' foam on the external shuttle fuel tanks (communism).

That is all our discussion was about lol. You know me Hal, a defender of freedom and capitalism against the scourge of communism in all its forms. :D

JK

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Sundog


Good Lord Hal, I'm older than you. How depressing. :p

He only mentions his 45 years on Earth, he is after all, a Vulcan and lives hundreds of years.

[peptoabysmal]

Oh hey, I just thought of a solution to this problem. We sell the Iranians "commie envirofoam" as sheilding for their nuclear reactors. *Boom* - problem solved.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Oh hey, I just thought of a solution to this problem. We sell the Iranians "commie envirofoam" as sheilding for their nuclear reactors. *Boom* - problem solved.

You, sir, are a freakin' genius.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight Hal, the commie enviro-foam problem is what brought down the space shuttle. You see, there was such a proactive enviro-mindset at NASA that they sacrificed the safety of the astronauts by using a new environmentally 'friendly' foam on the external shuttle fuel tanks (communism).

That is all our discussion was about lol. You know me Hal, a defender of freedom and capitalism against the scourge of communism in all its forms. :D

Your claim is, in fact, that the foam broke off because it was environmentally friendly and such an accident could not have happened with the old stuff?

Please cite.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn We cannot allow crazed religious fanatics like this to control nuclear arsenals.

Why not? We elected Geoge W. Bush. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

We should get the best intel we can, then confront them.

Which we're oh-so good at, right? Where are all the nasty weapons we said Iraq had?

If they won't give up their "peaceful nuclear" power plans, it's time to take them out.

Holy cow! Peaceful, clean, environmentally concious power production!? Bomb them!

[headscratcher4]

What if the Iranians are able to hide their WMDs as successfully as the Iraqi's...I bet that after we go after Iran, well figure out that they are hiding them all in N. Korea! Of course, by than, the N. Koreans will have hidden them in Syria (which we won't figure out till we've done N. Korea). Than, the Syrian's will hide 'em in Lybia (which we won't figure out till we've done Syria). Than, the Lybian's will hide them in Cuba....

In the meantime, we'll have to have another tax cut to pay for our distruction, occupation and reconstruction (along democratic lines, of course -- BTW, and as an aside, we are going to be reconstructing Iraq as a "democratic" state, yet we are taking away their guns -- i.e. the automatic weapons, you know, the kind that the Republican Congress is about to make more readilly available to the US public -- can you build a democracy when the popultion has been deprived of their guns? How will they fight governmental tyranny/). As an American taxpayer, I can't wait for the next cut to pay for our future endeavors in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lybia, Cuba, etc. The chance to improve our domestic economy by wipping out these countries is just too good to pass up...:D

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by chulbert

Holy cow! Peaceful, clean, environmentally concious power production!? Bomb them!

LOL!!!!!!!! if you believe the Iranian's nuclear program is "peaceful"... hahahahahaha.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
LOL!!!!!!!! if you believe the Iranian's nuclear program is "peaceful"... hahahahahaha.

I do. At last until I see evidence otherwise. It takes more than a "LOL!!!!!!!!" to convince my of my error.

I like to have a little more than vague suspicion before I got level a country.

[Gem]

Let's use some critical thinking.
Iran sees that Iraq's regime was overthrown in 3 weeks because the US accused Iraq of WMD. To Iran, whether the US is right or not in it's invasion is not much of an issue, because they knew that the US wasn't going to back down. So they didn't protest much, probably sent in operatives in Iraq to gain power/support, the usual stuff.

However, Rummy said that Iraq was a good lesson to "rogue" regimes about WMD. It was. North Korea is getting away with FAR more potent WMD WITH means to launch them. Everyone heard of a NK missle that can reach the west coast? Or at least Japan. Iran looks at Iraq and North Korea. And they see the important facts: Iraq was weak, with weak military, weak population support. Although it had international "backing," that "backing" didn't save it. Saddam is toast. Then they look at NK, and see that it's military is its top priority (I assume it's military is somewhat better than Iraq's), it definatly has WMD (nuclear weapons). It has backing from China (China doesn't want the pesky US next door).

What do they learn? Get a nuke as fast as possible, support anti terrorist effort to a degree (like pakistan did). The lesson from Iraq is not the same the Rummy is trying to make us beleive. The US will not invade a rogue regime with a nuke without first getting involved in heavy diplomacy (like they are in NK). Which gives them more time to get a nuke.

They are also very well aware that the US is not able to attack Iran at the moment, or in the near future. First, the world thinks the US is bent on world domination, and that someone is next. To invade shortly after Iraq would confirm this. Second, the US is pretty busy with two nations to rebuild (or one if Afganistan went in the trash basket already).

Sorry JK, you'll have to wait for Bush's second term to invade another country.

Gem

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Gem


They are also very well aware that the US is not able to attack Iran at the moment, or in the near future.

You are wrong. We could attack them today, and destory them very quickly. If Bush thought for one second that there was a real chance of Iran finishing some nukes and possibly handing them to islamic terrorist, he would attack them right now, without a moment's hesitation. And rightfully so.

All you apologists for nations like Iran and NK... do you want to see New York, London, or Los Angeles nuked, and millions of people killed. Because it's coming unless we do EVERYTHING humanly possible to stop it.

Would taking out a crazy-ass fundamentalist regime in Iran be a bad side-effect of our efforts? Hardly.

[Jon_in_london]

Iran is a democracy.

Isnt it strange how every extereme bushist right-winger is actually a gulf war veteran? maybe its all those vaccines or something.......


PS Genghis- does your daughter swallow?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

PS Genghis- does your daughter swallow?

Come on Jon, knock it off. It's already been established in another thread that it's a picture of a female impersonator. I apologize for the dirty daughter crack.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by chulbert
I like to have a little more than vague suspicion before I got level a country.

Well gosh, are you saying that the Iraqi regime's gassing of 100,000 Kurdish civilians in the north in over 5 major villages is a "vague suspicion"? lol.

Jesus H. Christ, that is pretty funny. I do find it comical that when the leftist media says Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction, some elements of the public actually buy it hook, line and sinker.

Saddam used weapons of mass destruction against his own people in the 1980's, and yet now we are to believe that he "never had them". I have to hand it to the European communists for understanding the attention-span of most Americans is pandemic to marginalization.

France and Germany and other European socialist-commie states provided Saddam cover to hide/destroy some of his WMD but they didn't get rid of it all. It will turn up. I am even willing to put a wager on it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Let's use some critical thinking.
Iran sees that Iraq's regime was overthrown in 3 weeks because the US accused Iraq of WMD. To Iran, whether the US is right or not in it's invasion is not much of an issue, because they knew that the US wasn't going to back down. So they didn't protest much, probably sent in operatives in Iraq to gain power/support, the usual stuff.

However, Rummy said that Iraq was a good lesson to "rogue" regimes about WMD. It was. North Korea is getting away with FAR more potent WMD WITH means to launch them. Everyone heard of a NK missle that can reach the west coast? Or at least Japan. Iran looks at Iraq and North Korea. And they see the important facts: Iraq was weak, with weak military, weak population support. Although it had international "backing," that "backing" didn't save it. Saddam is toast. Then they look at NK, and see that it's military is its top priority (I assume it's military is somewhat better than Iraq's), it definatly has WMD (nuclear weapons). It has backing from China (China doesn't want the pesky US next door).

What do they learn? Get a nuke as fast as possible, support anti terrorist effort to a degree (like pakistan did). The lesson from Iraq is not the same the Rummy is trying to make us beleive. The US will not invade a rogue regime with a nuke without first getting involved in heavy diplomacy (like they are in NK). Which gives them more time to get a nuke.

They are also very well aware that the US is not able to attack Iran at the moment, or in the near future. First, the world thinks the US is bent on world domination, and that someone is next. To invade shortly after Iraq would confirm this. Second, the US is pretty busy with two nations to rebuild (or one if Afganistan went in the trash basket already).

Sorry JK, you'll have to wait for Bush's second term to invade another country.

Gem

You lose me with the 'world-domination' piece. How does freeing people under the iron grip of a repressive regime equate to dominating them?

If we wanted to dominate Iraq we could have left Saddam in place and kept the embargo against Iraq churning along.

But we freed them.

Freedom is never domination.

The Iraqi people now have more freedom than the average American living under matriarchal totalitarian cultural terror. I envy them in a way. What I can only pray for when thinking of the Iraqi people is that radical leftist commie feminism doesn't penetrate their institutions because that will be more terrifying culturally than Saddam Hussein's rule, but chances are they will be swallowed up by that radical leftism eventually. Hopefully the Iraqi people will get a chance to enjoy their real freedom before the commie globalists with their feminazi stooges go in there and do a real job them.

So I think the lesson here is that freeing people is not dominating them, that is, unless after radical feminism is forced down their throats and then I would probably have no choice but to agree. :eek:

How can men in America be as free as the Iraqis are now? We are all experiencing Saddamonite-type terror here with a feminist edge.

JK

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


How can men in America be as free as the Iraqis are now? We are all experiencing Saddamonite-type terror here with a feminist edge.

JK

Hey Jedi,

I'm just curious about something. Your feelings about women obviously sprout from somewhere - there's very obviously a story there. You hate women the way Jews hate Germans. Care to fill us in, maybe in a new thread, or is that being too nosy? Apologies if it is.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Sundog
Your feelings about women obviously sprout from somewhere - there's very obviously a story there. You hate women the way Jews hate Germans. Care to fill us in, maybe in a new thread, or is that being too nosy? Apologies if it is.

As I've said before, his underpants are too tight. He hates women because getting an erection hurts his gonads.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Iran is a democracy.

Isnt it strange how every extereme bushist right-winger is actually a gulf war veteran? maybe its all those vaccines or something.......


PS Genghis- does your daughter swallow?

You mean the "Islamic Republic of Iran (http://www.president.ir/)" is a democracy?!?!? Hmmmm.... Maybe it's all that bubble and squeak.

Er.. don't forget to sign the guestbook while you're there :D

[Gem]

You lose me with the 'world-domination' piece. How does freeing people under the iron grip of a repressive regime equate to dominating them?

Well, European colonization of Africa could be a good example. In other words, The Soviets "liberating" poland. I think you'd agree.

What I meant is how certain people ( a lot ) say that the US is dominating the world. To invade Iran right now would only confirm their theories, to their minds and to others undecided minds.

And yes, the US could whip Iran off the planet tomorow, but not without more casualties because they aren't as ready as they were with Iraq. More casualties, more war, bad economy is NOT good for re elections.

Remember, there is always more in foreign policy than morality.

IF the US gets involved in Iran, why don't they support the reformers/liberals in Iran? You know, the ones the overthrew and replaced them with the Shah?

Gem

P.S.: JK, if you envy Iraq by thinking they have more freedom than we do here, maybe Benjamin Franklin would want to live there? "Where liberty dwells, there be my country." You have related the feminazi in a discussion about Iranian nuclear program. Quite a feat.

[Malachi151]

The problem is obviously that of crying wolf on the part of the Bush administration.

Since the Bush administration has been lying all along, no one will trust them even when they are correct.

They have totally undermined their own credibilty and are paralyzing this country from a democratic perspective.

Now, from a totalitarian perspective they are sill going strong.

Any further military action fro mths administion wil be totalitarian in nature, because they have lost so much credibility and there is so much confusion that it would not be honest to say there can be democratic support for action right now.

No one knows what is true and not, so how can anyone give an honest opinon? We can't, and if we the people can't then its not democracy, even if polls say so.

More and more people know that the administration are supporters of plans of long term military gols of American global preeminance, and every new action seems to be fitting into that plan. So, how can anyone know if they are just following a plan for their own agenda, if they are following a plan that needs to be followed, if these are real issues that need to be addressed, or what?

As far as I'm concerned they have totally undermined this government and our international standing to the point that we may well make a mistake by not taking action when it is needed just because there is so much second guessing, of course, again, that woudl be to assume they don't just act as dictators and do what they want anyway.

[Gem]

All you apologists for nations like Iran and NK... do you want to see New York, London, or Los Angeles nuked, and millions of people killed. Because it's coming unless we do EVERYTHING humanly possible to stop it.

Never apologized for those nations, I'm just trying to understand WHY they do it. Morality, in my opinion, is just something politicians use to get popular support during war. It rarely has anything to do with it.

Actually, it's not coming that you're doing everything to stop it. The US is still letting NK and Pakistan off the hook (for various reasons).

And like I said before, the US can invade the middle east shortly. But casualties, immense political persecutions, will probably make Bush lose the elections, and I doubt he wants that. Truly, who wants to vote for a warmonger? (that's the sort of argument people are using, and will use if invasion of middle happens).

People aren't kiding when they say it's a "complicated" issue.

Gem

[Gem]

The problem is obviously that of crying wolf on the part of the Bush administration.

I do not entirely agree. The war on Iraq was partially sold on WMD, liberation of oppressed people and domino theory. I personally disagree on the domino theory, because despots aren't dumb, they know how to keep power. Liberation of oppressed people is hard to swallow, because I doubt it's the real motif. As for WMD, it was obvious that Saddam HAD WMD, but the question for me was "Are there any left?" The inspections in the 90s didn't utterly failed, they did destroy tons of stuff. The question is, is there more hidden or a few missles/tons of WMD?

Remember the papers that proved that Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger (or whatever African country), was proved faked? I think that this paper convinced the democrats (the party that wasn't thrilled of going to war) of voting yes to war. Found out it was fake. Is it a conspiracy by the Bush? National Iraqi Congress? Could be, they sure had something to gain if war happened. But that's not the main thing.

The main thing is that WMD were made to look like Saddam had 70000 tons of it and more. We found nothing yet. Personally, I'd wait at least a year until I make up my mind. If within a year nothing is found, then there's something definatly wrong.

But there is no physical proof of WMD or proof that Bush lied (misled by intelligence is an option, but then the CIA goes to the spotlight).

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Well, European colonization of Africa could be a good example. In other words, The Soviets "liberating" poland. I think you'd agree.

What I meant is how certain people ( a lot ) say that the US is dominating the world. To invade Iran right now would only confirm their theories, to their minds and to others undecided minds.

And yes, the US could whip Iran off the planet tomorow, but not without more casualties because they aren't as ready as they were with Iraq. More casualties, more war, bad economy is NOT good for re elections.

Remember, there is always more in foreign policy than morality.

IF the US gets involved in Iran, why don't they support the reformers/liberals in Iran? You know, the ones the overthrew and replaced them with the Shah?

Gem

P.S.: JK, if you envy Iraq by thinking they have more freedom than we do here, maybe Benjamin Franklin would want to live there? "Where liberty dwells, there be my country." You have related the feminazi in a discussion about Iranian nuclear program. Quite a feat.

Whenever I read someone using "African colonization" in comparing current US administration policy in the middle east it is like fingernails going across a chalkboard to me.

That is 1960's-era logic to use that comparison. What you are basically saying Gem is that the "white guys" must be colonial in thinking since they "invaded" another country.

I think it is time for everyone to get past that form of antiquated thinking, Gem.

The only US "colony" in our collective history of warfare was the Phillippines--and we gave it back. We invaded a lot of countries. Why didn't we take them all?

I won't go as far as saying that the African colonization propaganda relating to western intervention in foreign nation-states is communist propaganda, but certainly leftist. The US invaded Iraq because of imminent national security threats, not to colonize.

Hey, check this out too--feminists love to use "colonization" when they think of white men and foreign policy. It is like the colonization of the womb and is naturally something feminists are repulsed by because it smacks of penetration.

You know, fear of the rebirth of the nation-state into something better--something free. Giving birth to anything is the antithesis of feminist logic.

Maybe men should advocate colonization of everything the United States touches.

JK

[Genghis Pwn]

One aircraft carrier group plus our bombers already in Qatar could bomb Iran into submission.

[Malachi151]

All you apologists for nations like Iran and NK... do you want to see New York, London, or Los Angeles nuked, and millions of people killed. Because it's coming unless we do EVERYTHING humanly possible to stop it.

Everything humanly possible huh?

How about this idea.

We spend about $380,000,000,000 a year on the military, and have been spending in that order since WWII. In that time things have actually gotten worse in terms of international perception of America, hmm, I wonder why.

Now, lets just say that we were to spend $100,000,000,000 sending money TO the CITIZENS of the countries of the world by razing labor wages either by simply making an international minimum wage, or by subsidizing wages that companies pay with tax dollars.

That way the citizens get the money, not this ******** foerign aid that just goes to oppressive rulers.

How much support would angry militant anti-American leaders have then if their citizens were getting big money from us?

Also, hmm, MAYBE we should not have lead an armed return of the Shah of Iran, a former Nazi affiliate to lead Iran in the 1950s eh? And MAYBE the CIA should not have had the Shah kill a torture thousands of people in Iran eh? You think?

Maybe we should not have shot down an Iranian passenger jet in the 1980s killing almost 300 people.

Maybe we should not have sold WMD to Saddam to and told him to use them again the Iranians eh? You think that has ANYTHING to do with it?

Maybe we should not have invaded Iran in the 1980s and destroyed oil wells and oil platforms in the sea eh?

You see, people hate the US because the US goes to their country and they kill people, its that simple.

Within the past 20 years the US is responsible for the deaths of thousand of Iranians. Do you think they should be happy about that? eh?

Now you see, the things that brought you that cheap gas that you complain about so much to get, and your cheap products from around the world, cloths from Old Navy and etc, that is all done through extortion and bribery and US military control of foreign countries, and they don't like it see.

You now complain because of the lifestyle that you want which is taken from others through force when you choose to ignore.

That is why people are unhappy and ready to build weapons. So, maybe we fix THOSE problems eh? Heaven forbid you have to compromise.

Americans have been living in a dream world fantasy for 50 years beign fed propaganda and lies and happily believing it all because it was too good to be true. Well you know what they say about things that are too good to be true eh? They aren't true.

[Malachi151]

The only US "colony" in our collective history of warfare was the Phillippines--and we gave it back. We invaded a lot of countries. Why didn't we take them all?

LOL, more blind ignorance :D This is what we call democracy :p hehe

[Genghis Pwn]

Malachi151. you just named all the things you hate about America, some mistakes we have made in the distant past, but you did not answer my question. Your only solution is to pay blood-money to our enemies and set up a worldwide socialist welfare state, when we don't even have one at home. :rolleyes:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Malachi151. you just named all the things you hate about America, some mistakes we have made in the distant past, but you did not answer my question. Your only solution is to pay blood-money to our enemies and set up a worldwide socialist welfare state, when we don't even have one at home. :rolleyes:

The distant past?

The 1980s is the distant past? What is the distant past? I call 100 years the distant past.

So, let's see, if a foreign government, such as China has been meddling in American affairs for the past 50 years and had puppet Chinese Presidents in America for about 30 years of that time, and then launched attacks on California in the 1980s and funded Canada and supplied them with Chemical weapons to attack America in the 1980s, and then in the 1990s they bombed Canada and destroyed its infrastructure and had sanctions on Canada that whole time, and then they invaded Canada 2 months ago and were occupying Canada and the next thing they said was, your next unless you disarm. What do you think the reaction would be?

See, that is the entire thing will all the fascists, they keep saying, oh, that's the past, forget about that. ********. That's like your wife cheating on you for 30 years and every time it happens again she says, oh that's the past, forget about that. Would you forget? What do we all need amnesia? You have to have head trauma not to see what is going on.

Yes of course I want global socilaism, that is the solution, capitlaism is the problem. Not global welfare, who said anything about welfare?

How about stop sending foreign aid to militant leadrs and supplying them with weapons to oppress their populations and keep wages low and keep unions from forming? How about that as a start?

I'm not going to go into all of this, my full argument and data in all in the paper links in my sig.

How can we choose to ignore the history fo the US with the Shah of Iran and hope in any way to understand the conditons today? its impossible. The Iran of today is a product of the Shah and Americna intervention. That is just the facts. The Shah was as inhumane as Saddam Hussein, possibly more. You think they like that? Of course there was radical rebellion and fundmanetalism grew, they were driven to it by the CIA and the Shah, that's why they have anger directed at the USA. I can't ignore those facts and be objective. They all knew then they all know now the the US is who was behind all that. They(the current Iranians) are aware of the plans, because they took control of the offices and such, of American intentions to dominate the Persian Gulf using the Shah. They know that the US has had long terms plans of occupation fo the Gulf since WWII, and that Iran was the place where it was to start, but the plans have changes and now it is Iraq and Afganistan. I mean when the Shah was ousted paper work was left behind, I mean come on.

Even if we are to assume that those plans are not longer relevent today, why would they assume that? They will still believe it because they have first hand knowledge of plans that were in effect and actions that were carried out. They, the Iranians, have experainced a pattern of events since the 1950s, which indicates the US is attempting to take military and political control of the Persian Gulf. That is what they are acting on, a long history of events.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Yes of course I want global socilaism, that is the solution...

And there you have it, folks. :rolleyes:

[CapelDodger]

One aircraft carrier group plus our bombers already in Qatar could bomb Iran into submission.
That's been the claim of air-power enthusiasts before every war since 1919. And it has always been proved false. In the particular case of Iran you have a largely self-sufficient country with no obvious strangle-points, a well-organised civil service and a robust infrastructure. The population is ethnically and religiously homogenous and their culture has a long and proud history. Iran was never colonised, and in fact the British conquest of India was made possible by the Iranian (effective) destruction of the Moghuls. Arguably the only time Iran has been subject to foreign rule since the early Islamic period was when they were ruled by the Shah as a client-state of the USA. Something which rankles with them.

Why would they submit? Does their leadership lack backbone? These are the people that, according to your thesis, are slavering to nuke Washington so they can have their country evaporated. On the other hand they'll go belly-up under a bit of carpet-bombing? There was a Gulf War before the Kuwait War; have a ponder of that and decide how easily the Iranians give in.

The history of theocracy in Iran goes back to 1979, that's 24 years at time of writing. Prior to that Iran was a shining example of modernisation and the attractions of Westernisation. Sadly they were ruled by an illegitimate government that maintained itself with secret police and torture-chambers. Prior to that they were a democracy with a leftist government. That had to go, of course. Upshot is, this is a well-educated, highly motivated population that has no shortage of experienced officers and plenty of knowledge of how the Americans will fight a war in this region. Go on, make my day.

[CapelDodger]

From Malachi151:
Even if we are to assume that those plans are not longer relevent today, why would they assume that? They will still believe it because they have first hand knowledge of plans that were in effect and actions that were carried out. They, the Iranians, have experainced a pattern of events since the 1950s, which indicates the US is attempting to take military and political control of the Persian Gulf. That is what they are acting on, a long history of events.
What is important is the interpretation of the Iranians, and it's only natural that they see themselves at the centre of things. In my opinion American foreign policy has never had any consistency of strategy over periods of more than five years. The usual thing is happening again before our eyes; as soon as Afghanistan has been occupied attention shifts to Iraq, and now, while the situation remains entirely fluid / situation-normal in both it's all eyes to Syria on even weeks and Iran on odd ones. Until the Shah was overthrown - a complete surprise to the Americans, which shows how much attention they were paying - US policy was entirely directed by the Cold Warriors, and targets like "warm-water ports" were the gaming-tokens, not oil (which, after all, the USSR wasn't short of).

[Gem]

Whenever I read someone using "African colonization" in comparing current US administration policy in the middle east it is like fingernails going across a chalkboard to me.

That is 1960's-era logic to use that comparison. What you are basically saying Gem is that the "white guys" must be colonial in thinking since they "invaded" another country.

I think it is time for everyone to get past that form of antiquated thinking, Gem.

The only US "colony" in our collective history of warfare was the Phillippines--and we gave it back. We invaded a lot of countries. Why didn't we take them all?

I won't go as far as saying that the African colonization propaganda relating to western intervention in foreign nation-states is communist propaganda, but certainly leftist. The US invaded Iraq because of imminent national security threats, not to colonize.

Hey, check this out too--feminists love to use "colonization" when they think of white men and foreign policy. It is like the colonization of the womb and is naturally something feminists are repulsed by because it smacks of penetration.

You know, fear of the rebirth of the nation-state into something better--something free. Giving birth to anything is the antithesis of feminist logic.

Maybe men should advocate colonization of everything the United States touches.

JK

JK you said

does freeing people under the iron grip of a repressive regime equate to dominating them?

What I wanted to say is that the Europeans "freed" the Africans from their current repressive regimes. They also dominated them with slavery and later with racism and labor. So in a sense, freeing people can equate to dominating them.

I also compared it to the Soviets. The soviets freed the poles from the Nazis (freed from an repressive regime), and installed their own puppet dictators (dominating the poles).

The only US "colony" in our collective history of warfare was the Phillippines--and we gave it back. We invaded a lot of countries. Why didn't we take them all?

How about Hawaii? Puerto Rico (sorry about spelling)? What about Panama? that wasn't a colony, but shoot me down if Teddy Rosevelt installed a democratic country over there to "free" the people. You don't need to dominate people militarily to get their ressources, as the Shah and Saudi princes show. Economic Imperialism is harder to fight than military Imperialism, because when you attack it, you harm your fellow countrymen. You also did not take them all because they were already the property of European powers, but when they were gone, you DID "intervene." South Korea (before the war), South VietNam. You also took them from Spain (Spanish American war), where you won the phillipines, cuba and other islands. US foreign policy wasn't rosy.

Whenever I read someone using "African colonization" in comparing current US administration policy in the middle east it is like fingernails going across a chalkboard to me.
I did not compare African colonization with US intervention in the middle east. I beleive they are two seperate things with many differences together, the most predominant one the time period.

That is 1960's-era logic to use that comparison. What you are basically saying Gem is that the "white guys" must be colonial in thinking since they "invaded" another country.
Again I am not saying that. There are other powers in history (non white) that were imperilist (Ottoman Empire, Persian, Chinese, Japanese) I do not think that every invasion in US history was colonial (world war 1 and 2), but I do beleive that economic/political reasons are also behind public reasons. The fact the Iraq sits on a lot of oil with an unsupportive despot in power does make me probe my mind.

The US invaded Iraq because of imminent national security threats, not to colonize.
Hitler said that he invaded Poland because the Poles had attacked a Radio Station, making it an act of war. Now I don't want to compare Hitler to Bush, I really don't, but the reason given to go to war is not always the same to the real reason. For example, Hitler wanted to expand east to get more land for the germans (wanted to invade Russia too, but he was delayed). Now I don't agree with him, but he didn't say he invaded Poland because he wanted more land for his people, no, he said that Poland attacked them, that it was a threat, etc. Now some people thing a SIMILAR (not the same) thing happened in Iraq. These people think that Bush lied to everyone, that there really isn't that much WMD (let's say a few drums and missles), and the international security threat is non existant. The papers that proved that Saddam wanted to buy uranium from Africa was forged, and to them it's the first proof that Bush was lying.

JK, you beleive that there are WMDs, and so forth. Some don't, some think it's just a lie, to either divert from the ailing economy or to get the oil (cheaper oil means more oil, after all), or both. The entire war in Iraq's justification was on WMD. If no WMD are found, the government will probably get severe criticism from everywhere. You will also hear a lot about Syria hidding the WMDs, too. But if they are found, you'll hear the planted evidence theory instead of the Syria WMD theory.

Gem

P.S.:
I think it is time for everyone to get past that form of antiquated thinking, Gem.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Because the US remembers well the coloniztion, they're trying hard not to make the mistake, so no it is not a good idea to get past that way of thinking.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Malachi151:

What is important is the interpretation of the Iranians, and it's only natural that they see themselves at the centre of things. In my opinion American foreign policy has never had any consistency of strategy over periods of more than five years. The usual thing is happening again before our eyes; as soon as Afghanistan has been occupied attention shifts to Iraq, and now, while the situation remains entirely fluid / situation-normal in both it's all eyes to Syria on even weeks and Iran on odd ones. Until the Shah was overthrown - a complete surprise to the Americans, which shows how much attention they were paying - US policy was entirely directed by the Cold Warriors, and targets like "warm-water ports" were the gaming-tokens, not oil (which, after all, the USSR wasn't short of).

Okay, I'll just ask this to see if you agree, you say yes or no.

The fall of the Shah was the biggest failure/suprize in American covert operations history.

The Shah was not a puppet of the US, the US propped the Shah up and they served each other in a mutually beneficial relationship.

The Shah's SAVAK secret police were among the most brutal of any group in in the past 50 years, and the SAVAK were trained and supplied by the CIA and the Iranians are aware of this.

The Shah could not have come to power or remained in power without US assistance.

The Shah protected America's oil interests in Iran, the US generally just sent him money and supplies and left him with little oversight and was only minorly involved.

The economic advice given to the Shah by Americans caused problems for his country due to the huge loans that he took out on oil futures, and when the price of oil dropped that greatly damaged the Inrainin economy and the Shah.

Support for Islamic Fundamentalism grew in Iran in response to the oppression of the Shah's rule in that the Shah did not represent the interests of his people if they were inconflict with American interests.

Americna support allowed the Shah to abuse power for his own interests, like Saddam.

There, that is the view I have that I base my judgement of the situation on.

Do you agree that it is accurate?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
What I wanted to say is that the Europeans "freed" the Africans from their current repressive regimes. They also dominated them with slavery and later with racism and labor. So in a sense, freeing people can equate to dominating them.

Historically you are correct, but if you will notice the Europeans gave up almost all of their colonies. Europe, and the west for that matter, have not colonized anyone in decades. The sophistication of current governments understand that colonization is very unpopular.

After two decades of communist propaganda from the Marxist Mandela regime in South Africa (they even made Lethal Weapon movies to push that nasty Marxist propaganda), do you honestly believe that colonization is a valid foreign policy objective and one that President Bush would get away with internationally? You have got to be kidding.

All military action by the United States in recent years (1989-forward), has been due to national security issues and nothing more.

I also compared it to the Soviets. The soviets freed the poles from the Nazis (freed from an repressive regime), and installed their own puppet dictators (dominating the poles).

No way. The Soviets had to use Poland as the gateway to attack their bitter enemy Germany. If you planted Switzerland where Poland is the Russians would have waltzed through there. It was of strategic military importance and nothing more. The parasitical communists naturally kept the country after WWII as a war prize for their 28 million war dead at the hands of the Nazi regime.

How about Hawaii? Puerto Rico (sorry about spelling)? What about Panama? that wasn't a colony, but shoot me down if Teddy Rosevelt installed a democratic country over there to "free" the people. You don't need to dominate people militarily to get their ressources, as the Shah and Saudi princes show. Economic Imperialism is harder to fight than military Imperialism, because when you attack it, you harm your fellow countrymen. You also did not take them all because they were already the property of European powers, but when they were gone, you DID "intervene." South Korea (before the war), South VietNam. You also took them from Spain (Spanish American war), where you won the phillipines, cuba and other islands. US foreign policy wasn't rosy.

The Phillippines is the only territory the US has colonized from war action. We also gave it back to them. We now colonize no foreign countries.

I did not compare African colonization with US intervention in the middle east. I beleive they are two seperate things with many differences together, the most predominant one the time period.

Well you need to be specific. When you mention "colonization", you have to mean it as European colonization pathology. There is no other reason to use colonization unless that is what you mean.

Again I am not saying that. There are other powers in history (non white) that were imperilist (Ottoman Empire, Persian, Chinese, Japanese) I do not think that every invasion in US history was colonial (world war 1 and 2), but I do beleive that economic/political reasons are also behind public reasons. The fact the Iraq sits on a lot of oil with an unsupportive despot in power does make me probe my mind.

How is the United States being imperialist? The United States was attacked on 911, killing thousands of our citizens and the Iraqi operation was a component of that but Saddam ignored 12 years of UN resolutions (58 of them). It wasn't imperialism that had us go into Iraq. It was US and global security that forced us to go. In two years we will be out of Iraq and the Iraqi people will be following their own destiny in a democratic setting.

How is freedom imperialism? That is the flaw of the argument by the left regarding US military action overseas and why no major movement by the left has been possible to subvert US policy. If US policy was so fundamentally flawed we would not be engaged with Iraq.

Hitler said that he invaded Poland because the Poles had attacked a Radio Station, making it an act of war. Now I don't want to compare Hitler to Bush, I really don't, but the reason given to go to war is not always the same to the real reason. For example, Hitler wanted to expand east to get more land for the germans (wanted to invade Russia too, but he was delayed). Now I don't agree with him, but he didn't say he invaded Poland because he wanted more land for his people, no, he said that Poland attacked them, that it was a threat, etc. Now some people thing a SIMILAR (not the same) thing happened in Iraq. These people think that Bush lied to everyone, that there really isn't that much WMD (let's say a few drums and missles), and the international security threat is non existant. The papers that proved that Saddam wanted to buy uranium from Africa was forged, and to them it's the first proof that Bush was lying.

Hitler attacked Poland to gain access to the Ukraine and the rich farmlands of the Russians. Like I mentioned above, Poland is just in a bad location geographically and has critical strategic importance as the gateway to Europe from the east.

JK, you beleive that there are WMDs, and so forth. Some don't, some think it's just a lie, to either divert from the ailing economy or to get the oil (cheaper oil means more oil, after all), or both. The entire war in Iraq's justification was on WMD. If no WMD are found, the government will probably get severe criticism from everywhere. You will also hear a lot about Syria hidding the WMDs, too. But if they are found, you'll hear the planted evidence theory instead of the Syria WMD theory.

No, the WMD will be dug up and will be proven to be manufactured by Saddam using Iraqi state machinery and corporate power.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Because the US remembers well the coloniztion, they're trying hard not to make the mistake, so no it is not a good idea to get past that way of thinking.

The United States isn't imperialist and isn't colonizing anyone. How many American colonists are there in post-war Japan today? Germany? France? England? None. None sanctioned by the American nation-state. There is no validity even mentioning colonization when debating US foreign policy. It is something the US simply doesn't do and like I said it is proven historically.

Do we kick ass sometimes? You bet. But don't confuse us going to kick ass against enemies with colonizing them. Also, replacing leadership in foreign countries is also not colonizing. If you attack an enemy nation-state that is an agressor against you and overthrow their government, the follow-on government is not the outcome of colonization. It is 'refreshing change'.

lol

JK

[Malachi151]

All military action by the United States in recent years (1989-forward), has been due to national security issues and nothing more.

The Phillippines is the only territory the US has colonized from war action. We also gave it back to them. We now colonize no foreign countries.

The United States isn't imperialist and isn't colonizing anyone. How many American colonists are there in post-war Japan today? Germany? France? England? None. None sanctioned by the American nation-state. There is no validity even mentioning colonization when debating US foreign policy. It is something the US simply doesn't do and like I said it is proven historically.

LOL. What is so very sad is that most Americans would agree with these statements, which are of course 100% false, and based on the propaganda that is spread in the United States.

JK is one of the millions that live in the framework of lies that has been constructed by American leadership and the media. Its a virtual reality that many Americans believe in and cling too religiously.

This is the reason that America is a dangerous country, its full of delusional people. Its not their fault, that's what happens when you are brought up in a civilization that lies to you from the time you are born, which most civilizations do. Its the civil religion that binds the country together and makes it work in favor of the exploitive wealthy elite.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151
All military action by the United States in recent years (1989-forward), has been due to national security issues and nothing more.

The Phillippines is the only territory the US has colonized from war action. We also gave it back to them. We now colonize no foreign countries.

The United States isn't imperialist and isn't colonizing anyone. How many American colonists are there in post-war Japan today? Germany? France? England? None. None sanctioned by the American nation-state. There is no validity even mentioning colonization when debating US foreign policy. It is something the US simply doesn't do and like I said it is proven historically.

LOL. What is so very sad is that most Americans would agree with these statements, which are of course 100% false, and based on the propaganda that is spread in the United States.

JK is one of the millions that live in the framework of lies that has been constructed by American leadership and the media. Its a virtual reality that many Americans believe in and cling too religiously.

This is the reason that America is a dangerous country, its full of delusional people. Its not their fault, that's what happens when you are brought up in a civilization that lies to you from the time you are born, which most civilizations do. Its the civil religion that binds the country together and makes it work in favor of the exploitive wealthy elite.

The "exploitive wealthy elite"? You mean the non-idle, right?

JK

[Clancie]

This is funny. Almost a whole thread made up of Genghis Pwn posting back and forth to himself as Jedi Knight.

How cool! Two right wing fanatics for the price of one.;)

[Malachi151]

The "exploitive wealthy elite"? You mean the non-idle, right?

Actually the wealthy are among the most idle in America. Wealth kind of allows that you know. Not that there is anything inhernetly wrong with wealth. Its just all the lies that have been used to build and maintian the system.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The "exploitive wealthy elite"? You mean the non-idle, right?Actually the wealthy are among the most idle in America. Wealth kind of allows that you know. Not that there is anything inhernetly wrong with wealth. Its just all the lies that have been used to build and maintian the system.
I am the son of parents who belong to the class which is in-between upper middle class and middle class. I am very idle. I like having lots of free time on my hands and I want things to stay that way.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The "exploitive wealthy elite"? You mean the non-idle, right?

Actually the wealthy are among the most idle in America. Wealth kind of allows that you know. Not that there is anything inhernetly wrong with wealth. Its just all the lies that have been used to build and maintian the system.

Wealthy people became wealthy because of discipline and hard work in most cases.

Ever get a job, you know, get hired by a poor person?

Oh wait, what am I thinking. I know what you want. You think government should run all the corporations, tax people 75% of their wages and enact "once hired never fired" manpower rules like France does lol.

Malachi, are you a Marxist?

JK

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Wealthy people became wealthy because of discipline and hard work in most cases.

Ever get a job, you know, get hired by a poor person?

Oh wait, what am I thinking. I know what you want. You think government should run all the corporations, tax people 75% of their wages and enact "once hired never fired" manpower rules like France does lol.

Malachi, are you a Marxist?

JK

You have to ask? hehe :D Of course I am a Marxist.

Ever get a job, you know, get hired by a poor person?

This is the most tired piece of Reagonomic propiganda :p lol, you bought that? ;)

You have seen the graph of wages from the 50 through 2000 in a different thread. You know the tax rates when that happened? Top tax bracket was in the 90%+ range. Then JFK cut it to 70%, then Reagan to 50% then to 28%, and when was the most growth? When it was 90% after the war.

Now I am not going to attribute that growth just to the tax rates, there were many reasons for it, but those "liberal" tax systems created the American middle class and helped support small business and whatnot. If we had used a tax system like we are using now back then, America would be in economic ruins by now.

What is going on now is the devesting of the middle class and poor. See the Supply-Siding has worked because there was a strong economic base built up from the 1940s through to the 1980s. 20 more years of this and America will be looking more like South Africa.

I have no fears of the economic sitution because the results are inevitable, and as things get bad people will figure it and and make changes.

As economic disparity is increased due to the tax system and the natural mechanism of capitalism class struggle will increase in America until a solution is reached, which will be the onset of socialism. Thats the issue, the conflict interal to capitalism cannot be resolved so it will lead to socialism no matter what eventually.

This would all have happened about 80 years ago, but the Bolshevik Revoltution screwed it up by making people freak out and rebel against the Socialist Reovlution out of fear from an external enemy. Doesn't matter though because capitalism's flaws will lead to socialism there is no way to avoid it other then constant war and oppression, which I doubt will happen because that would eventually lead back to feudalism.

Capitalism is just a phase in economic development, its not a pinnical. The Bolsheviks were wrong in their attempts to froce Socialist Revolution, it will happen naturally and be more sound that way and likely more respective of piravte property then what the Bolsheviks and Maoists were trying to do.

[Zep]

Well, folks, the view from a first-world, democratic, peaceful country with a 200-year history that is NOT the USA is that the USA is like a 900-pound bear: Where does it sit? Anywhere it friggin' well wants to!

The USA, whether we like it not, IS the most powerful country in the world today, and the facts are that the USA has the biggest stock of nuclear (or should that be "nucular") weapons by far. It also has the biggest stocks of biological and chemical weapons, and conventional weapons, navy, aircraft, and modern arms. It also has huge armament manufacting capability. In short, the country with the biggest collection of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world today IS the USA, and whoever comes second is so way in the distance as to be outasight.

So, far more than Iran or Iraq or Pakistan or India or any other potential nuclear force, the thing that REALLY scares us peace-loving non-Americans is when an obvious ijjit like GWB and his cronies get to be the guys with the finger on the trigger of this fireworks-pile. We simply do not trust them to act with care and concern for the rest of the world, and their recent forays into other countries on the flimsiest of excuses and what now turn out to be downright lies strongly reinforce the Hopalong Cassidy impressions these guys are doing.

Personally, dare I say it: Even JK's ultra-conservative rants in this forum are more "rational" and reasoned than anything I have heard out of the current Bush administration in the past months. Truly! He's less scary and more likely to be taken seriously outside the USA than the current Oval Office resident!! I kid you not!

I said it before elsewhere: We remain amazed that a country of 250 million intelligent and bountiful people can elect a highly belligerent sock-puppet as its president. Surely there must be millions of far better suited candidates available??? Hal Bidlack, ever thought of standing for office???

Zep

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151



Yes of course I want global socilaism, that is the solution, capitlaism is the problem.




Look **********, if you want to help the poor and give your money to the "needy", then you do it. Dont shove your morals on everyone else, forcing them into slavery to support your nanny government.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



Malachi, are you a Marxist?
JK

Sir, I was wondering when you would notice that a marxist came on board...please do something about it and don't forget!!! I am for the blood!

[Flo]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

France and Germany and other European socialist-commie states provided Saddam cover to hide/destroy some of his WMD but they didn't get rid of it all. It will turn up. I am even willing to put a wager on it.

JK


True, and every French citizen has been issued with a plot of land and a shovel, and believe me, we're having a hard time burying this lot ... I'm not aware of the arrangements in Germany, though .. :rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


You mean the "Islamic Republic of Iran (http://www.president.ir/)" is a democracy?!?!?

It is according to the CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)



Suffrage:
15 years of age; universal
Executive branch:
chief of state: Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)
elections: leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts; president elected by popular vote for a four-year term; election last held 8 June 2001 (next to be held NA 2005)
election results: (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani reelected president; percent of vote - (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani 77%
cabinet: Council of Ministers selected by the president with legislative approval
head of government: President (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani (since 3 August 1997); First Vice President Dr. Mohammad Reza AREF-YAZDI (since 26 August 2001)
Legislative branch:
unicameral Islamic Consultative Assembly or Majles-e-Shura-ye-Eslami (290 seats, note - changed from 270 seats with the 18 February 2000 election; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: last held 18 February-NA April 2000 (next to be held NA 2004)
election results: percent of vote - NA%; seats by party - reformers 170, conservatives 45, and independents 10, 65 seats up for runoff; note - election on 5 May 2000 (reformers 52, conservatives 10, independents 3)



Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!
:D

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Clancy
This is funny. Almost a whole thread made up of Genghis Pwn posting back and forth to himself as Jedi Knight.

How cool! Two right wing fanatics for the price of one.;)

Do we know for a fact they're the same person? It certainly makes sense, and would explain how Jedi stayed away for so long when no one thought he could manage it, but do we know?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


It is according to the CIA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)




I dont see anything that says Iran is a democracy.

Government type: Theocratic republic

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony



I dont see anything that says Iran is a democracy.

Government type: Theocratic republic

Yes, and the USA is a "Constitutional Republic". But most people accept "Democracy" as a shorthand for that. One person-one vote. Elected officials. And suchlike.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


Yes, and the USA is a "Constitutional Republic". But most people accept "Democracy" as a shorthand for that.


"Most people" may accept that, "democracy" has devolved into a generic term for representative government in the popular lexicon, but the reality is that Iran is not a democracy.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

We cannot allow crazed religious fanatics like this to control nuclear arsenals. We should get the best intel we can, then confront them. If they won't give up their "peaceful nuclear" power plans, it's time to take them out.


---


You are wrong. We could attack them today, and destory them very quickly. If Bush thought for one second that there was a real chance of Iran finishing some nukes and possibly handing them to islamic terrorist, he would attack them right now, without a moment's hesitation. And rightfully so.


Which is it? Is there are real chance Iran finishes some nukes, or isn't there?


Would taking out a crazy-ass fundamentalist regime in Iran be a bad side-effect of our efforts? Hardly.

Ah, yes, fundamentalist regimes. What are you going to do with the crazy-ass fundamentalist voters? Iran has an elected government that works for reforms against an elected for life religious head-of-state. This religious head-of-state has a lot of support, or that part of Iranian government would have been abolished already. A very similar population group happens to be the majority in Iraq by the way. I hope, but don't believe, that they won't vote in a fundamentalist regime to run the country the moment the US allows them to choose what they want.

The scary thing about Iran, Iraq and others isn't the fundamentalist governments, but the fundamentalist populace, and I don't think the US can convert them to the prefered political philosophies by invading them.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Do we know for a fact they're the same person? It certainly makes sense, and would explain how Jedi stayed away for so long when no one thought he could manage it, but do we know?

NO, this is a stupid ad hom attack and lie, from people who can't argue the facts and have to try to falsely undermine rational ideas. I will bet any person on this board any amount of money that I am not Jedi Knight. You name the terms of how it will be proven. You can start by tracing my IP, and you will see that I am in Spain. If you think I'm using proxies, I'd be happy to give someone a phone call from here.

I have already, repeatedly stated that I am not Jedi. Anyone who now continues calling me that without putting their money where their mouth is, is a jackass and a troll.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

I am not Jedi Knight.

I'm with Genghis on this one. Genghis and JK's writing styles are rather different, and I don't recall JK paying visits to the Literature & Arts or Science forums.
Of course, the could be part of the "plan", and from my sporadic visits to the Banter forum, it does appear that there are some people on this messageboard who do some awfully odd things.
But if you don't know for sure, it's both pointless and also extremely rude to point the finger. It also helps to derail threads into name-calling even quicker than usual.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


NO, this is a stupid ad hom attack and lie, from people who can't argue the facts and have to try to falsely undermine rational ideas. I will bet any person on this board any amount of money that I am not Jedi Knight. You name the terms of how it will be proven. You can start by tracing my IP, and you will see that I am in Spain. If you think I'm using proxies, I'd be happy to give someone a phone call from here.

I have already, repeatedly stated that I am not Jedi. Anyone who now continues calling me that without putting their money where their mouth is, is a jackass and a troll.

The women in your avatar is Mena Suvari, the film star famous for such movies as American Pie and American Beauty? Btw, I suspect the accusations of being Jedi Knight are a result of the substitution of hyperbole for facts and rational ideas. Sorry.

[Cleopatra]

You are right to be upset but don't pay any attention, deep in their heart they now that Mr.Jedi Knight is... A Unique Person.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



"Most people" may accept that, "democracy" has devolved into a generic term for representative government in the popular lexicon, but the reality is that Iran is not a democracy.

You refuse to belive that Iran is a democracy because you dont like Iran. Meanwhile the US has a president most Americans didnt vote for and Britian has an unelected german as its head of state.

Pot. Kettle. Dictatorship.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


You refuse to belive that Iran is a democracy because you dont like Iran.




I refuse to acknowledge Iran is a democracy because you have failed to show evidence.

You refuse you believe Iran is a theocratic republic because you dont like america. Yes I can play that game too. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile the US has a president most Americans didnt vote for and Britian has an unelected german as its head of state.

The US is not a democracy. And only idiots think it is. Furthermore, most americans didnt vote for Bill Clinton in '91 either. What's your point?

Pot. Kettle. Dictatorship.

Huh?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



I refuse to acknowledge Iran is a democracy because you have failed to show evidence.

You refuse you believe Iran is a theocratic republic because you dont like america. Yes I can play that game too. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile the US has a president most Americans didnt vote for and Britian has an unelected german as its head of state.

The US is not a democracy. And only idiots think it is. Furthermore, most americans didnt vote for Bill Clinton in '91 either. What's your point?

Pot. Kettle. Dictatorship.

Huh?

I have showed you evidence- it elects its leaders and holds periodic elections to do so.

If the US isnt a democracy then what right does it have to keep banging on at other nations to become democracies?

[Tony]

I have showed you evidence- it elects its leaders and holds periodic elections to do so.

You've shown evidence that the people elect rulers or representatives, but the people dont have power to enact reform or change. The muslim clerics have that power. The CIA concurs with this, thats why the government of Iran is classified as a "Theocratic Republic".

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


If the US isnt a democracy then what right does it have to keep banging on at other nations to become democracies?

"democracy" has devolved into a generic term for representative government in the popular lexicon

We arent going to establish a democracy, we are going to establish some other form of representative government.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Do we know for a fact they're the same person? It certainly makes sense, and would explain how Jedi stayed away for so long when no one thought he could manage it, but do we know?

The only account that I have on JREF is Jedi Knight. Linda has the IP of my network and my full registration info because I am a member of JREF. I use a static IP.

But look, I see people are trying to use their mystical psychic powers again. None of you are psychic and I can prove it. There are only a handful of real psychics on the entire planet, and none of you match the criteria.

So wager me $500.00 that I am Ghenghis so I can add you all to the failed psychic list. Better yet, wager me $500.00 that I have any other handle on this forum if you think your psychic powers exist.

When I win, which I will (naturally), I will just have you send the money to JREF and the foundation can have it.

None of you are psychic. You are all mundanes.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


NO, this is a stupid ad hom attack and lie, from people who can't argue the facts and have to try to falsely undermine rational ideas. I will bet any person on this board any amount of money that I am not Jedi Knight. You name the terms of how it will be proven. You can start by tracing my IP, and you will see that I am in Spain. If you think I'm using proxies, I'd be happy to give someone a phone call from here.

I have already, repeatedly stated that I am not Jedi. Anyone who now continues calling me that without putting their money where their mouth is, is a jackass and a troll.

Hey, I agree. You know, when I was a young lad (not so long ago lol) I went to a beach in Spain and there were women there topless with the biggest tits I ever saw in my life. Those chicks were pretty healthy.

Ahem. Moving beyond that, I am all for a wager on this subject.

Anyone who thinks I post on this forum as anyone but Jedi Knight put your money where your mystical claim of psychic powers are. I am ready to clean house and send all that $$$$$ I win from you mundanes to JREF (or you can send it to them).

Come on psychics, step up. (Ian, Clancy, etc etc etc)

Hey Ghenghis, don't let them bother you. They do that stuff a lot. When they claim that you are someone else on the forum that means they love you, worship you and want to shine your shoes. Don't take it personal lol.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by BillyTK


The women in your avatar is Mena Suvari, the film star famous for such movies as American Pie and American Beauty? Btw, I suspect the accusations of being Jedi Knight are a result of the substitution of hyperbole for facts and rational ideas. Sorry.

Well Sylvia the Psychic, put yer $$$$$ where your mouth is and wager.

JK

[Genghis Pwn]

Jedi Knight, you are right about the fine spanish boobs.

Check out this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20428) thread I made on Banter. Let's line up a bunch of these trash-talking, name-calling, intellectual sissies and take them all to the cleaner$. :D

[CapelDodger]

From Malachi151:
Okay, I'll just ask this to see if you agree, you say yes or no.

I'm pretty much on board with all the following points. My point is that there hasn't been a consistent US stategy on Iran that has brought us to this point. When the Iranian parliament was overthrown and the Shah was boosted into power it was because the oil-fields were otherwise going to be nationalised. Once that had been prevented US attention wandered away, as always. America's attention-span is too short for there to have been a 50-year US strategy on anything.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Tricky

It was hardly trolling. I added the smilie to indicate that I don't hold this opinion myself, but I think you could find a large number of people who think Bush is religious fanatic, and he has his finger on the button of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Also, he has proven that he will attack for specious reasons. He makes me a LOT more nervous than anyone in Iran.

Bush may have the button, but he cannot launch a nuclear device on his own. To equate any American President with those folks is ridiculous in the extreme. Furthermore, if ANY American president makes you a "LOT more nervous than anyone in Iran," you need to wake up and smell the flowers.

I have been in Iran back when we were welcome, more or less. I know how those fanatics think, and experienced it up close and personal. If there were small nuclear weapons in Iran, it would be only a short time until some Islamic bound for glory and 72 virgins would have one for himself or his faction. If one thinks that Bin Laden's group, and countless others like them would not gladly give their lives to float one into NY harbor, you are an la-la land.

I have lived about five miles from a major port facility for ten years. After 9/11 I tend look at the ships in that port in an entirely different light, and that is part of the reason I will be moving far from a port facility and into the quiet country side of north central Texas. The next delivery from such idiots will not be a plane against a tall building, but it may well be a port facility. If a boatload of Haitians can land on the beach in Miami - - - well - - -.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky

It was hardly trolling. I added the smilie to indicate that I don't hold this opinion myself, but I think you could find a large number of people who think Bush is religious fanatic, and he has his finger on the button of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Also, he has proven that he will attack for specious reasons. He makes me a LOT more nervous than anyone in Iran.

So far I have never heard Bush use any religious comment s out side the JREF forum not that he didn’t but the Bush bashers or obviously exaggerating few small quotes.
This is a new low even for you Tricky I wouldn’t even compare Clinton to a mass murdering government as Iran.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Iran is a democracy.

Isnt it strange how every extereme bushist right-winger is actually a gulf war veteran? maybe its all those vaccines or something.......


PS Genghis- does your daughter swallow?

Because someone is elected, that has no authority and no real control over the country it’s considered a democracy.
You have already lost this argument in another thread Jon.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Baker
You have already lost this argument in another thread Jon.

No I havent.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Let's use some critical thinking.
Iran sees that Iraq's regime was overthrown in 3 weeks because the US accused Iraq of WMD. To Iran, whether the US is right or not in it's invasion is not much of an issue, because they knew that the US wasn't going to back down. So they didn't protest much, probably sent in operatives in Iraq to gain power/support, the usual stuff.


You seem to give fundamentalist theocracies more credit then I do. What you are saying would be a logical thing for them to learn-accusation of WMDs equals fall of country. But such people ARE not logical. That's why they are fundamentalist theocrats.

They *may* think God will protect them, that they need to get WMDs FAST in order to fight off more agression from the future "Satan", that they can hide it or whatever else pops into a fundies head when confronted with nice toys and unpleasant facts.

Ins hort you seem to overestimate their critical thinking skills and underestimate their resolve.

North Korea is getting away with FAR more potent WMD WITH means to launch them. Everyone heard of a NK missle that can reach the west coast? Or at least Japan.


And what would you have us do? Invade North Korea now that it HAS nukes and a strong army. After we already lost a war to them WITH China next door.

The lesson here is you don't wait to invade AFTER a country has Nukes. You do it BEFORE, because afterwards its too late.

And you pick your enemies wisely. Iran and Iraq are pipsqueeks. North Korea is a communist powerhouse. War with them would be costly and dangerous.

What do they learn? Get a nuke as fast as possible, support anti terrorist effort to a degree (like pakistan did).

Now you contradict yourself. Of course they should see the logic in this, even without Iraq and North Korea. Why? Because once you have a Nuke, there's little a nation can do.

Do you suggest we actually attack a nation with Nukes? That is suicide my friend.


Now I don't think we have enough rescources to spread ourselves too thinly on this, which is why I don't think we should attack Iran any time soon. At least until we get Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilt or at least stabilized.

However I would support the war IF it came. My issue is just one of prudence for which I admit much ignorance of the actual logistics and military details.

I imagine with UN help we could take Iran, but the UN has demonstrated its lack of conviction in actually promoting human rights,democracy and future peace with anything but lip service.

[Gem]

The people in power are usually not idiots. If they weren't put in power, they grabbed power. And to grab power you have to be pretty smart.

All I was saying is that once you have a nuke nations think twice before attacking you, which the war on iraq and diplomacy on NK is proving, in my opinion.

I'm not saying whether anything is right or wrong.

Gem

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Baker


So far I have never heard Bush use any religious comment s out side the JREF forum not that he didn’t but the Bush bashers or obviously exaggerating few small quotes.
This is a new low even for you Tricky I wouldn’t even compare Clinton to a mass murdering government as Iran.

I guess you didn't hear his State of the Union address where he invoked God many times. If you like I will look it up for you. He claimed the backing of Heaven quite often. Much of his cabinet, John Ashcroft in particular, have similar "holy turettes syndrome". I am unsure why you brought Clinton into this. Should I call it a "new low for you"?

[DialecticMaterialist]

The people in power are usually not idiots. If they weren't put in power, they grabbed power. And to grab power you have to be pretty smart.

All I was saying is that once you have a nuke nations think twice before attacking you, which the war on iraq and diplomacy on NK is proving, in my opinion.


Two words: Jerry Falwell.

Two More: Pat Robertson.

Both very stupid, both very deluded and powerful.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by CSSMariner


Bush may have the button, but he cannot launch a nuclear device on his own. To equate any American President with those folks is ridiculous in the extreme. Furthermore, if ANY American president makes you a "LOT more nervous than anyone in Iran," you need to wake up and smell the flowers.

I have been in Iran back when we were welcome, more or less. I know how those fanatics think, and experienced it up close and personal. If there were small nuclear weapons in Iran, it would be only a short time until some Islamic bound for glory and 72 virgins would have one for himself or his faction. If one thinks that Bin Laden's group, and countless others like them would not gladly give their lives to float one into NY harbor, you are an la-la land.

I have lived about five miles from a major port facility for ten years. After 9/11 I tend look at the ships in that port in an entirely different light, and that is part of the reason I will be moving far from a port facility and into the quiet country side of north central Texas. The next delivery from such idiots will not be a plane against a tall building, but it may well be a port facility. If a boatload of Haitians can land on the beach in Miami - - - well - - -.

You are right. Funny how people like us who have spent time in these fanatical islamic countries, and know how their people think, all pretty much agree about the enormous danger they pose.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Of course if the US does recieve another terrorist attack, it will not prove to the anti-war radicals that we need to attack terrorists and take them more seriously. Instead it will of course "prove" that the US has "brought this upon itself" by "interfering in ME affairs" and that we need to thus "pull out" of the ME and ask for forgiveness.

I don't think we should stop Iran but perhaps we should try to slow it down.

[CSSMariner]

If I were to receive, or otherwise intercept a message from someone who said he, or not to offend by omission, her, was going to hunt me down for as long as I was alive and kill me at the earliest opportunity, I would do my level best to, shall we say, "make a preemptive strike."

America and its citizens have been served notice in the most public, and horrifying way in the case of the 9/11 attacks, plus the USS COLE, the Hobar Towers, our embassies, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, ad infinitum, that we are being hunted and the intention is to destroy Americans and America.

The terrorists have in effect taken off the gloves, and tossed down the gauntlet. We should turn all of our resources to hunting the bastards down and dealing with them on terms they can understand, up close, personal, and deadly. They have made the threat and carried out examples of how they want and/or intend to go about it. We have the intelligence resources and they should all be brought to bear at a very fine focus and used for the job for which they were designed, protecting Americans and America, and our allies. Also, the next news hound to release the fact that we are tracking terrorists with their cell phones, or by any other means, should be locked up for treason. :mad:

My humble opinion.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Tricky

I guess you didn't hear his State of the Union address where he invoked God many times. If you like I will look it up for you. He claimed the backing of Heaven quite often. Much of his cabinet, John Ashcroft in particular, have similar "holy turettes syndrome". I am unsure why you brought Clinton into this. Should I call it a "new low for you"?

I’m not sure how a few quotes from the State of the Union address makes him a religious fanatic however I wouldn’t mind reading a transcribed from it.
I brought Clinton into this to show that I wouldn’t use such harsh comparisons to an oppressed and murdering government as Iran despite my many disagreements, I had with the Clintons administration.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by CSSMariner
If I were to receive, or otherwise intercept a message from someone who said he, or not to offend by omission, her, was going to hunt me down for as long as I was alive and kill me at the earliest opportunity, I would do my level best to, shall we say, "make a preemptive strike."

America and its citizens have been served notice in the most public, and horrifying way in the case of the 9/11 attacks, plus the USS COLE, the Hobar Towers, our embassies, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, ad infinitum, that we are being hunted and the intention is to destroy Americans and America.

The terrorists have in effect taken off the gloves, and tossed down the gauntlet. We should turn all of our resources to hunting the bastards down and dealing with them on terms they can understand, up close, personal, and deadly. They have made the threat and carried out examples of how they want and/or intend to go about it. We have the intelligence resources and they should all be brought to bear at a very fine focus and used for the job for which they were designed, protecting Americans and America, and our allies. Also, the next news hound to release the fact that we are tracking terrorists with their cell phones, or by any other means, should be locked up for treason. :mad:

My humble opinion.

Well said.

http://ddevins.homestead.com/files/america_eagle.jpg

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Well said.

http://ddevins.homestead.com/files/america_eagle.jpg

Thank you.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well Sylvia the Psychic, put yer $$$$$ where your mouth is and wager.

JK

Just to clarify, you wish to wager on whether the basis of the accusations that Ghengis is you are a result of the substitution of hyperbole for facts and rational ideas?

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Jedi Knight, you are right about the fine spanish boobs.
Your avatar is Sylvia the psychic, and not Mena Suvari as I suggested?

:confused: