quote:

Originally posted by CHRles I completely back up LazFX on everything said here. Of course hardcore trancer is just going to continue to see anyone who disagrees with him as a neocon, and he will continue to blame Bush for all the problems of the world.

But ofcouse you agree with him,you are typical neocon sheep who blindly believes anything.I dont blame Bush for most of todays world problem because he IS the cause,maybe if you take your head out of your ass you'll realize that to.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer But ofcouse you agree with him,you are typical neocon sheep who blindly believes anything.I dont blame Bush for most of todays world problem because he IS the cause,maybe if you take your head out of your ass you'll realize that to.

Yes, because cultural unrest in the Middle East NEVER EXISTED BEFORE BUSH...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yup and they are very proud of me and there are many of us here in Canada that hates your disgusting filthy government with passion.

Oh really???? Wow that makes me feel so threatned, that you have a passion for something other than bieng a complete idiot....

so tell me......how much passion do you and your counterparts hate the US. Really speak your mind... please I am all "Ears"!

Give me examples of what and your people would do if given the chance....

I'll refrain from answering because your answers are setup in a for or against format. There is no flexibility. Not everyone is for war or completely against war.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yes, because cultural unrest in the Middle East NEVER EXISTED BEFORE BUSH...

True, some unrest did exist, bush just managed to exacerbate it. Without the US meddling around it would have ran it's natural course and it would have arrived at what the people in the region wanted. The best thing of having it occur naturally is that people fight for it, they learn from it and the results are long lasting. Whatever the US manages to achieve in that area it'll be imposed on the people and it won't mirror they're desired and thus will be short lived unless the US stays in the area until there is no opposition and the 'westernization' is completed.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yes, because cultural unrest in the Middle East NEVER EXISTED BEFORE BUSH...

Simply fackes
there's no culture unrest in MEast

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I'll refrain from answering because your answers are setup in a for or against format. There is no flexibility. Not everyone is for war or completely against war.

What kind of flexibility are you looking for? Support domestic opposition groups?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What kind of flexibility are you looking for? Support domestic opposition groups?

First, your question presupposes that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, which has not been proven. We do know that they are developing technology that might let them develop a nuclear weapon down the road. We also know that Iran is anti-US, but then again plenty of people around the world are anti-US. We do know that Ahmedinejad is full of verbose anti-israeli rhetoric, but also that he holds little power in Iran and that Iran is not as unified as it appears. So to start us off, we can say that your asking something based on false premises.

Second, you do not account for or explain what a 'failure in diplomacy' means. Does it mean a failure on Iran's part to comply with the US' 'commands'? Or does it involve Iran developing a nuclear weapon? Maybe you should clear that up for us. Then we can decide if we would be for an attack on Iran, or not.

Lastly, you're question is based on another false premise, that Iran, if armed with a nuclear weapon would be hostile. Now, we already know that Ahmedinejad is chock full of empty rhetoric, we also know that Iran hasn't in recent history gambled with attacking anyone directly. So we can safely assume that a nuke would be use as a defensive measure. In all of history we also know that US is the only country that has ever used a nuke. We also know that israel is the only country that in recent history has used direct violence towards another country (i.e. by actually using their army). We also know that Israel has nukes and has no quips with using them. Now, I think one could conclude that even if Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, it would be almost impossible for diplomacy to fail since they have no attacking use for it and if they're safety is guaranteed in the international domain they would have no need of developing it. Again, if you clarify what you mean by failure of democracy maybe we could give you a more accurate matter.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

This post brings up an interesting human dynamic.

If 50% of the population wants to go to war, and the rest are scattered amidst less unified solutions (though nonetheless NON-war solutions), does the 50% in favor of war win due purely to unficiation?

Thus there is a human dynamic here that needs addressed and solved: ratio errors.

I find it interesting reading replies between the 'neocons' and the other guys, liberals suppose you call them. Both claim the other is not respected in this forum, then go on to insult one another, refuting any respect anyone held for them. It's all a bit childish.


In terms of Iran, I don't think it will ever come to military action, the hardliners do not have enough support or influence in Iran atm (I know the president is a hardliner, but he exists on quite a delicate balance, the religious leaders hold the real power). A for the west, I don't think there is enough support for war here either, but I suppose the US is used to not listening to anyone.

___________________
if i had a hammer...

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer But ofcouse you agree with him,you are typical neocon sheep who blindly believes anything.I dont blame Bush for most of todays world problem because he IS the cause,maybe if you take your head out of your ass you'll realize that to.

Sorry, but I'm not a neocon.
You on the other hand are a typical terrorist lover, and you've got that ridiculous pro-nuclear alliance crap in your sig
You'll pretty ,uch twist anything Iran does to make it look positive. Keep trying to spin the truth, you're not fooling anyone.