Walking to Iran

Did I miss something? Is this 2005?

There might be a strike against Iran's nuclear program, but you don't know much if you think there is a full-blown invasion and occupation of Iran on the way.


Never mind. You people are fuxxing idiots who don't know how to read a super simple op. Where does it say anything about a full blown invasion and occupation? We don't have nearly enough troops to handle iran with the same logistics used on iraq and afghanistan. The op simply predicts we will attack iran and we have moved from simple planning to staging the logistical backdrops needed in iraq and afghanistan.

Your OP implies invasion and occupation.

If this administration attacks Iran, it is because they believe that Iran is very close to a nuclear weapon. This pretense was less necessary for the past administration.

The question then becomes, are you comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons? If you are comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons, then there is no reason to attack Iran. If you view Iran as a threat with nuclear weapons, then we attack them.

Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon in the future. It is the biggest and most powerful nation in the Middle East and is surrounded by nuclear powers, with Russia to the north, China, India and Pakistan to the east, and Israel and America in Iraq to the West. The surprise would be if Iran weren't trying to trying to build a nuclear bomb.

There is zero chance of an invasion of Iran but there is a significant chance of some sort of surgical strike. I don't think it will happen though. I'm not sure why the Nobel Peace Prize winner would be more inclined to strike than Bush, especially when Obama is publicly feuding with America's biggest ally in the region.
 
Shit, this calls for a cost/benefit analysis....


Cons: sinks us into yet another pointless land war in the ME, in a country which by all trends seems to be heading towards a democratic revolution...spends trillions of dollars...inflames radical muslims against us...would probably bankrupt the nation even further...a waste of life and material...

Pros: Would piss off CurveLight...





Too close to call.

Then by all means, saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran!

We should start with some air strikes, televised of course. Followed by a massive land invasion.


Thanks for helping make up our minds curvey, your a mensch!


It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

I knew you'd say that.
 
Then by all means, saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran!

We should start with some air strikes, televised of course. Followed by a massive land invasion.


Thanks for helping make up our minds curvey, your a mensch!


It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

I knew you'd say that.

Ya know, on the MB's that I have frequented since around '98, there's a term that has been thrown around WAAAAAY to much by people. But seriously, it absolutely applies in his case.

Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.
 
It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

I knew you'd say that.

Ya know, on the MB's that I have frequented since around '98, there's a term that has been thrown around WAAAAAY to much by people. But seriously, it absolutely applies in his case.

Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.

Yes, I've been on MB's for 10 years or more.

CL is the most predictable poster I've read.
 
I knew you'd say that.

Ya know, on the MB's that I have frequented since around '98, there's a term that has been thrown around WAAAAAY to much by people. But seriously, it absolutely applies in his case.

Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.

Yes, I've been on MB's for 10 years or more.

CL is the most predictable poster I've read.

Predictable to a "T".
 
Shit, this calls for a cost/benefit analysis....


Cons: sinks us into yet another pointless land war in the ME, in a country which by all trends seems to be heading towards a democratic revolution...spends trillions of dollars...inflames radical muslims against us...would probably bankrupt the nation even further...a waste of life and material...

Pros: Would piss off CurveLight...





Too close to call.

Then by all means, saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran!

We should start with some air strikes, televised of course. Followed by a massive land invasion.


Thanks for helping make up our minds curvey, your a mensch!


It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

Say what you want but the one displaying stupidity is the clown(lite) that believes every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, and I can spell (most of the time).


Now give us some more entertainment.........
 
Not gonna happen. There just isn't any support for such action this time around. Iran will have fully functional Nuclear Weapons in the very near future. Nothing will be done to stop this. This current administration has a pretty helter skelter foreign policy as well. They seem to be very tough on our allies while at the same time bowing and apologizing to our enemies. Iran will have Nukes and we will just have to deal with that. There are things we can do here at home to protect us from their Nukes though. Defense is the best offense on this one. It is what it is.
 
Did I miss something? Is this 2005?

There might be a strike against Iran's nuclear program, but you don't know much if you think there is a full-blown invasion and occupation of Iran on the way.


Never mind. You people are fuxxing idiots who don't know how to read a super simple op. Where does it say anything about a full blown invasion and occupation? We don't have nearly enough troops to handle iran with the same logistics used on iraq and afghanistan. The op simply predicts we will attack iran and we have moved from simple planning to staging the logistical backdrops needed in iraq and afghanistan.

Your OP implies invasion and occupation.

If this administration attacks Iran, it is because they believe that Iran is very close to a nuclear weapon. This pretense was less necessary for the past administration.

The question then becomes, are you comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons? If you are comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons, then there is no reason to attack Iran. If you view Iran as a threat with nuclear weapons, then we attack them.

Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon in the future. It is the biggest and most powerful nation in the Middle East and is surrounded by nuclear powers, with Russia to the north, China, India and Pakistan to the east, and Israel and America in Iraq to the West. The surprise would be if Iran weren't trying to trying to build a nuclear bomb.

There is zero chance of an invasion of Iran but there is a significant chance of some sort of surgical strike. I don't think it will happen though. I'm not sure why the Nobel Peace Prize winner would be more inclined to strike than Bush, especially when Obama is publicly feuding with America's biggest ally in the region.


How does the op imply invasion and occupation? Because you made that assumption.

Attacking iran is the trigger to the bigger picture and do you really believe the same wmd propaganda about iran that was sold on iraq? I mean...really truly believe it?


How do you come up with "zero" chance of an invasion? I have no doubt there will be some ground forces which will be needed for
propaganda and air to ground logistics
 
Then by all means, saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran!

We should start with some air strikes, televised of course. Followed by a massive land invasion.


Thanks for helping make up our minds curvey, your a mensch!


It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

I knew you'd say that.


Quite a stellar display of prediction to say you knew what I would say......after I already said it.......pure genius.
 
Then by all means, saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran!

We should start with some air strikes, televised of course. Followed by a massive land invasion.


Thanks for helping make up our minds curvey, your a mensch!


It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

Say what you want but the one displaying stupidity is the clown(lite) that believes every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, and I can spell (most of the time).


Now give us some more entertainment.........


I believe you pointed out how I criticized someone for claiming explosives were used on the Towers but now you want to say I believe every conspiracy theory? Seems to me honest and even halfway intelligent people don't need to lie to make a point yet you resort to that quite often.
 
It's easy to control dummasses like you and radioasswipe. You guys are predictable, not too bright, and completely lack any semblance of honesty.

Say what you want but the one displaying stupidity is the clown(lite) that believes every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, and I can spell (most of the time).


Now give us some more entertainment.........


I believe you pointed out how I criticized someone for claiming explosives were used on the Towers but now you want to say I believe every conspiracy theory? Seems to me honest and even halfway intelligent people don't need to lie to make a point yet you resort to that quite often.

So tell us, which conspiracy theories don't you believe?

Your entertainment value is on the rise curvey.......
 
Not gonna happen. There just isn't any support for such action this time around. Iran will have fully functional Nuclear Weapons in the very near future. Nothing will be done to stop this. This current administration has a pretty helter skelter foreign policy as well. They seem to be very tough on our allies while at the same time bowing and apologizing to our enemies. Iran will have Nukes and we will just have to deal with that. There are things we can do here at home to protect us from their Nukes though. Defense is the best offense on this one. It is what it is.


On 9/10/01 there wasn't enough support to invade afghanistan or iraq. Neither country attacked us yet how many got suckered into supporting those invasions? I'm saying we will not attack iran until we are attacked again and it could be on literal US soil or one of our Embassies which is legally considered US soil. There are many parallels between the run up and attacking of iraq and the clear path heading mirroring towards iran. From the '79 Revolution a lot has been learned so we cannot employ the same tactics used in afghanistan and iraq.

This is not about iran having nukes just like afghanistan was not about terrorism and iraq was not about wmd. Seeing how well those propaganda methods worked it doesn't take a genius to see a replay with iran. Hell, how many people even know about IFSA?
 
Say what you want but the one displaying stupidity is the clown(lite) that believes every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, and I can spell (most of the time).


Now give us some more entertainment.........


I believe you pointed out how I criticized someone for claiming explosives were used on the Towers but now you want to say I believe every conspiracy theory? Seems to me honest and even halfway intelligent people don't need to lie to make a point yet you resort to that quite often.

So tell us, which conspiracy theories don't you believe?

Your entertainment value is on the rise curvey.......

Not much of a compliment coming from someone bedazzled by pocket lint and a flashlight. You got a response to the op or will you continue expressing your crush on me?
 
I believe you pointed out how I criticized someone for claiming explosives were used on the Towers but now you want to say I believe every conspiracy theory? Seems to me honest and even halfway intelligent people don't need to lie to make a point yet you resort to that quite often.

So tell us, which conspiracy theories don't you believe?

Your entertainment value is on the rise curvey.......

Not much of a compliment coming from someone bedazzled by pocket lint and a flashlight. You got a response to the op or will you continue expressing your crush on me?

So instead of answering the question you insult and project your crush onto me?


Your entertainment value is declining curvey.........
 
There is another angle of repeat in that the clinton admin was blamed for 9E and we can see everywhere how the neocon apologists are blaming obushama for attacks that have not even happened yet. So somewhere close to the end of obushama's term if another attack happens then the Dems will be seen as supersoft and the neocons will get rekindled with another shot at advancing their global hegemony agendas.

People will be too scared to remember everything we have done in killing and wounding untold numbers of innocent people over the past decade and just like 9E will buy the msm tagline of america under an unprovoked attack. Let us also not forget the beautiful philosophy of Nationalists: if you criticize America then you hate America.
 
So tell us, which conspiracy theories don't you believe?

Your entertainment value is on the rise curvey.......

Not much of a compliment coming from someone bedazzled by pocket lint and a flashlight. You got a response to the op or will you continue expressing your crush on me?

So instead of answering the question you insult and project your crush onto me?


Your entertainment value is declining curvey.........


Thank you for confirming you have no intention of responding to the O
P.
 
I responded to the OP by saying we should saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran.
That is not hard to understand. I will clarify;
I am in favor of using force against Iran if needed to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons.

I did respond to your pathetic OP........
 
NO INVASION.

Should've done this in the beginning when they declared war on us with their start of the IRAQI QUAGMIRE.

And, DEFINITELY anytime since then.

I doubt if we even have to smartbomb these arseholes at all.

Give the GREEN LIGHT for the Israelis to do it with the CLEAR UNDERSTANDING that they have our backing.......AND MEAN IT.

And, not hesitate to aid the Israelis.

I seriously doubt if we would have to do anything.

Maybe....just maybe......go BEYOND wiping out their nuclear facilities.....

There is no doubt that these arseholes would fold if and when we'd go after their infrastructure.....and, as I said .....that probably wouldn't have to happen.

BUT IF IT DID.......SO BE IT.

IMO, this would DEFINITELY stop the BULLSHIT in Iraq .....or have a salubrious net effect.

Maybe not stop the crap in Afghanistan......but certainly have a POSITIVE EFFECT on our operations there.

I will try NOT to respond to any opinions one way or another...... too busy.
 
Last edited:
I responded to the OP by saying we should saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran.
That is not hard to understand. I will clarify;
I am in favor of using force against Iran if needed to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons.

I did respond to your pathetic OP........


Why is it we are allowed to have nukes but not iran? By your standards we should be attacked simply because we have nukes. We are also the only nation in world history to use nukes on civilians.
 
I responded to the OP by saying we should saddle up the horses and point them towards Iran.
That is not hard to understand. I will clarify;
I am in favor of using force against Iran if needed to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapons.

I did respond to your pathetic OP........


Why is it we are allowed to have nukes but not iran? By your standards we should be attacked simply because we have nukes. We are also the only nation in world history to use nukes on civilians.

Too bad, we have them and the Iranians do not.

Your circular logic shows your hatred for the USA.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top