Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: US Considered Ways to Provoke War with Iran
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
US Considered Ways to Provoke War with Iran
Posted: 3/4/2012 9:40:15 PM

No need to read the article based on where it came from.

I just have no trust in anything the Zionists are involved with. If others trust and cheer the Zionists on, that's their problem. They are devious, deceitful, conniving, ruthless, brutal, coldblooded, merciless, greedy killers.

LOL

This explains a lot. If you refuse to read anything that treats issues about the military, military conflicts, and international politics about Israel without using the word "Zionist", then that may explain why you don't seem to have any understanding of these issues. Any balanced and informed treatment on these issues has to discuss Israel, because they work very closely with our military in many aspects. And those sources aren't going to use the word "Zionist", because that's a pretty dead giveaway to 99% or people knowledgeable about this topic that you are full of shit.

Go ahead, refuse to read anything from people who actually do this stuff for a living because they don't call Israelis names. Not like you can surprise us at this point.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
 
US Considered Ways to Provoke War with Iran
Posted: 3/3/2012 4:41:59 PM

Putting up a link that is so heavily wrapped up with Israel and defending Israel's position ... not to mention sponsors several Jewish publications all over the world (newspapers, etc.) sure tells us which side you're pulling for ... eh?

Uh.... what?

The link is about if Israel attacks Iran.

Thus, it is going to discuss Israel attacking Iran. And the practical considerations that go into it. Because that's what the article is about. It's kind of hilarious that you find this a little surprising and objectionable....

Furthermore, the article doesn't defend Israel at all. In fact, it doesn't even discuss anything qualitatively about the Israel-Iran relationship. I'm not even sure you read the right article based on your reaction.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Rick Santorum
Posted: 3/2/2012 12:32:38 PM
I'm not sure what you're asking me... of course Santorum wants people to vote for him. That's why he's running. It doesn't personally hurt him if he makes it to the primary and then bombs in the general election... He'll still make a fortune off of running.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 84 (view)
 
Rick Santorum
Posted: 3/2/2012 10:45:42 AM

I thought it was the vice president that is supposed to replace the President if something should happen to him?

Yes, but that's not relevant in an election process. You still have to have a full ticket.


Really? SO you had the same opinion when Limbaugh was telling Republicans to do the same thing for Hillary? Somehow I doubt it.

Slightly different. I think Hillary was the better candidate, but yeah... I thought that was a pretty evil way to look at the election.


Sinister! Ah!, maybe that's why Santorum was asking the Democrats to vote for him.

Yes? I'm not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Santorum wants people to vote for him...

Is this supposed to be a surprise?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 79 (view)
 
Rick Santorum
Posted: 3/1/2012 8:51:07 PM
I saw on the news that Democrats were able to go vote for Santorum last night in order to help this wingnut win in the state in question. (I do not remember the name of the state.)

According to these types of voters, it is they way to help assure that Obama will get elected if he is running against this clown.

THAT is truly clever to me anyway.

No, it is not clever. It's sinister, childish, and short-sighted. It undermines the entire spirit behind the election process and it endangers the election at its most fundamental principles.

If Santorum gets on the ticket and either something happens to Obama and he has a heart-attack or one of those nuts bombs something or some affair with a call-girl comes out and destroys all his public support, we'll be stuck with a psychotic theocrat for four years.

The nation benefits when the best two candidates are on the ticket. Special interest parties benefit when they undercut their opponents for partisan, personal, or financial gain.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Hmmm... Why can't we just learn to respect others' culture?
Posted: 3/1/2012 8:47:36 PM

LMAO ... nice try. Points awarded for the effort to mislead us, but you forget most of us really do have contact with any number of military personnel who have been there and know exactly that NATO troops are to respect the culture there ... no exceptions.

Hah. This sounds like "yeah, but.... I know you're wrong... I just do".


That can't be used as an excuse, because what you are missing here is that it is one thing if an "insider" desecrates what is dear to them, but it is entirely a different if it is done by an outsider, especially one that is not of that faith. Its sort of like if you desecrate something dear to you for whatever reason, compared to seeing someone else desecrating something you hold dear who has no business doing so.

From a practical standpoint this is true. From a "respecting cultures" or ethical standpoint it isn't really part of the context.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
 
US Considered Ways to Provoke War with Iran
Posted: 3/1/2012 8:43:48 PM
For those of you actually interested in looking at the Iran/Israel incident critically (and I think there may only be like 3 or 4 people here who are interested in anything more than blind propaganda and hating one side or the other irrespective of practical issues), an interesting article: http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/things-to-think-about-before-israel-attacks-iran/

Weighs the political and military issues at play if Israel actually tries to hit Iran, including trying to overcome the religious problems in convincing other countries to use airspace, the size of the installations Iran has, whether they're strikeable, and what kind of damage could be done. As much as other mid-east countries don't want Tehran to have nuclear capabilities, they like Israel less (except the Sauds, and maybe the Iraqis).

Excerpts:



The Iranian bomb program isn’t about just Natanz.

In fact, Natanz is almost redundant. There are two paths to developing a nuke: Enrichment to get Uranium-235, or extraction of Plutonium-239 from used reactor fuel. The Iranians are pursuing both routes.

There are seven publicly known installations at four locations that are essential to the Iranian nuclear weapons program: The heavy water reactor and heavy water plant at Arak, the uranium enrichment sites at Natanz and Qom (Fordow), and the fuel manufacturing plant, uranium conversion facility, and zirconium processing plant at Esfahan. They are all in the Israelis’ target folders.

Bushehr is not on the list. This is the Iranian’s “Potemkin” reactor. “See? Peaceful neutrons!” It is extremely difficult to extract weapons-grade plutonium from a light water reactor like Bushehr, and the Russians have been scrupulous about controlling the fuel. Bombing Bushehr would be a waste.



Their [The Iranians'] constant threats to close the Strait of Hormuz remind me of an individual claiming they’ve got a gun that nobody ever sees. Closing the strait is a defensive move, designed to share their pain with as many others as possible. And it will hurt Iran as well as its enemies. The fact that it backfired in 1987 and yet they’re using the same threat again shows how desperate they are.



Israelis need to rent a corridor through another country’s airspace for several days, possibly as long as a week. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know the Saudis would love to help the Israelis out, but what would their imams say? The Iraqis have no love for their long-time Persian enemies, but what would the man in the street think about planes with the Star of David flying overhead? The Turks and Israelis were on relatively good terms until a few years ago, but it’s been downhill since then.

None of Iran’s neighbors want Tehran to have nukes, but the leaderships of all three countries would pay a heavy political price domestically if they countenanced the Israeli transit.



Iran really, really wants the bomb. It has paid a heavy price for its nuclear weapons program, in political and economic terms, and in talent and treasure. Cue the irony buzzer. If Iran had put the same effort into rebuilding and modernizing its oil industry (still recovering from the Iran-Iraq war), they’d have a world-class economy and a lot more (oil-based) friends in the world. Lucky for us they decided to build the bomb first.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Hmmm... Why can't we just learn to respect others' culture?
Posted: 2/28/2012 9:40:40 PM
****ing hilarious. It's unfortunate that the troops didn't realize the Quran is disposed of differently than we dispose of things (we dispose of worn American flags by burning), and they thought that's how the Quran is disposed of as well. Obviously they were wrong, but this whole "problem" is an exercise in hypocrisy.

The Qurans were taken from the prisoners because they were passing messages in them between inmates. Note that Islam strictly forbids desecrating the Quran in such a way, but no, we need to viciously react to the Americans stopping the inmates from a) desecrating the Quran in pursuit of b) violence.

If you really think this "demonstration" has a damned thing to do with anything the Americans do, it can only be because that's what you really want to believe. Just another excuse. This has nothing to do with Americans disrespecting other cultures.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Atheist President in 2012
Posted: 2/20/2012 2:30:17 PM

We've probably had a few atheist Presidents in our memory - but they weren't declaring themselves atheist. Carter is the only one who was clearly a Christian - the others have all been "Christian" for pragmatic reasons as far as I can tell. I saw Bush Jr's pastor interviewed and even he thought the guy was politically Christian, but not so much in his heart of hearts.

I think Bush was the most fundamentalist Christian as President we've seen since WW2.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 25 (view)
 
US Considered Ways to Provoke War with Iran
Posted: 2/19/2012 11:55:29 AM
Sending their navy to the Med doesn't make much sense. They're quickly getting out of the range that they can provide logistical support and project force. Lacking the ability to field aircraft, their navy isn't capable of autonomous operation.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Housing bubble STILL not the fault of Homebuyers.
Posted: 2/18/2012 8:49:16 PM
This doesn't really mean what you think it means. Yes, there are going to be things done wrong in probably every single case of foreclosure. This isn't because of malice (though some may be), but because of the unbelievable complexity involved in foreclosing on a home. Proper notices have to be issued to every party involved (and the bank may have an incomplete list of parties), paperwork has to be filed in dozens of places, there have to be a certain number of notices provided to the owner before foreclosure (sometimes banks either neglect to do every notice, or some notices don't make it all the way to the owner, or the notice is served to the wrong party), etc....

I'd honestly be surprised to find a case of foreclosure where every nuance was properly executed to the fullest extent of perfection. For similar reasons, if you wanted to welsh on a credit card or something, you could probably find an error somewhere along the way that your card issuer or bank made that could get you off the hook for a substantial portion of the money you owed. It's quite simply the nature of how complex the system has become, legally.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 36 (view)
 
GOP Hawks will love this - USS Ponce gets a facelift & all expense-paid tour to the Middle East
Posted: 2/12/2012 11:18:04 AM
I'd like to see an actual link of one of those countries openly broadcasting their (so-called) "hate" for Iran.

lol. This is the caliber discussion you bring to the table.

I'm sure you have a local library. I suggest you use it. Dig out a history book or two. God forbid you actually learn something about what you're talking about. Countries don't "openly broadcast" hate for other countries.

Greece doesn't "openly broadcast" that they hate Turkey. But the primary existence for Greek military spending is Turkey. Yet no one could just go get a CNBC link to show you. You would actually have to go read history books. You would actually on one topic have to learn something about what you were talking about, instead of just knowing what your agenda is.

There is a lot of animosity from the Arabs towards Iran, and it dates back a long way. If you didn't know this, now you do. If you do not believe this to be true, you are wrong.

No, there's not going to be a news article about it, because it isn't news. There is nothing new about it. It's the way it's been for a long time. It is the makeup of the peoples of the region. The articles about it tend to be long, historical, and academic. Not likely to be something someone who thinks depleted uranium is a "dirty bomb" would want to read, but it's worth a try.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 109 (view)
 
Why is Religion such an important factor in Politics?
Posted: 2/10/2012 1:19:14 PM

Its a way to distract the mindless drones who think religion is in some way some how connected to morality

Morality and religion are absolutely connected. I don't know how you could think otherwise.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that they aren't mutually inclusive?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 26 (view)
 
GOP Hawks will love this - USS Ponce gets a facelift & all expense-paid tour to the Middle East
Posted: 2/8/2012 10:07:44 PM
I see ... so France, the UK, Spain, Australia, Poland ...... all have ships headed for the Middle East? I guess the Strait of Hormuz is gonna get pretty crowded ... pretty quickly. Let me guess ... just Israel will conveniently be missing even though it's why all the others are there? Ya ... that's what I thought.

Ships? All? No, but the UK does. The rest don't have the naval power. They have committed troops. Also, the Strait of Hormuz is not where ships sail when supporting naval roles in the Middle East. I hope you knew that and were just trying to somehow be snarky.

Israel does not have a blue water navy. Also, see above. We'll do everything we can to keep Israel from joining any western coalition in the middle east.



Every time the US has gotten involved in a conflict in the Middle East, Israel has offered to help out, but we've turned down their offer.

I'll need proof of that ... show us. (This oughta be good.)

lol really? Are you serious? That's awesome.

Just for funsies: In the first Gulf War, Iraq launched dozens of SCUD missiles at Israel. Why do you think Israel did not retaliate, when they have a history of overretaliating against most aggression turned towards them?



Iraq, for one. Egypt. Libya. Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. A lot of the Arabs don't like Iran.
Show us.

Show us what? I know this may be something you struggle with, but some things cannot be explained by links to 2-paragraph Huffington Post stories, and you're not going to be able to discuss them in drive-by snark mode. Iran has been an unstable influence in the Middle East for centuries, if not millenia. They were kept in check until now by a cold standoff with Iraq until we knocked Hussein out of the equation. They've openly threatened Turkey. The only real normal relations they have in the middle east are with Syria, and it's no coincidence that the two of them are teetering at the edge of stability. Even the states at the edges of the Arabian peninsula are uneasy with them. I cannot distill hundreds of hours of reading of history and just "show you". This isn't 8th grade arithmetic.


Soooo ... tell me again, why did we illegally invade Iraq (?) ... if they were not a threat to us?

First of all, it wasn't illegal. Secondly, see:

Every Western intelligence agency believed that Iraq was pursuing nuclear ambitions.

And again, do you think that someone has to have nuclear weapons to be a threat? Just curious, because you've made this mistake twice now, consecutively.


Give us a good reason to "illegally" invade still another Middle Eastern country.

Why would I do that?


What's it to us if they do not abide by the NPT? We don't abide by it either!

Whahuh? How do you figure?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
GOP Hawks will love this - USS Ponce gets a facelift & all expense-paid tour to the Middle East
Posted: 2/8/2012 9:36:03 AM
Just stupid "followers" ... just as the school bully has a pep squad of followers everywhere they go. "Bully Sr. and Bully Jr." (US and their little brother Israel) have requested it and so the others talk it up.

Wow. What an intricate and nuanced understanding of foreign affairs you obviously have. I'd never thought of just blowing off all analysis of international politics and just going with high school understanding. Clearly you have beaten us in your race to the bottom.


If the others who are raging about sanctions really meant it, they'd be right there along with Bully Sr. and Bully Jr. ... acting like they're ready to push some sort of button. But where are they?

They're doing it. In fact, several countries who would at any other time be entirely opposed because it will hurt them economically are still lining up in the face of obvious facts (Greece, Italy, Portugal).


Do you see any of their military out there with us?

Well... yes...

France, the UK, Spain, Australia, Poland... the list of countries who have troops fighting alongside ours goes on a ways, so I'm not going to list it all out here, but yes, I do see their military out there with us, and frankly it's pretty disgusting to see people like you denigrate our allies that have thrown their citizens' lives on the line to back ours. Especially hot on the heals of the French losing a number of soldiers in Afghanistan and holding a pretty touching memorial service.


Do you see any Israeli military out there with us? No? If they're our ally, then why not?

It's lines like these that really bring out the true colors that you have no idea what you're talking about. Every time the US has gotten involved in a conflict in the Middle East, Israel has offered to help out, but we've turned down their offer. In fact we request that they not only do not help, but they do not even make any sort of public statement of support for western coalitions in the ME. See if you can figure out why on your own. It's pretty elementary. Anyone who actually has taken the time to stay abreast of Middle Eastern affairs knows that and accepts it.



Most Arab countries privately HATE Iran; and would love for them to be demolished!

Really? Who? (Other than Israel?)

Iraq, for one. Egypt. Libya. Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. A lot of the Arabs don't like Iran. And never have, though they dislike Israel more.


Oh that's right ... the neocons tried to convince us that Iraq wanted to Nuke the US ... right?

Every Western intelligence agency believed that Iraq was pursuing nuclear ambitions. I don't recall any claims about nuking the US, though.


Seriously ... does anyone really believe Iran wants to Nuke the US? If not, then we have no reason to be there.

Though I don't advocate for war with Iran, do you really think the only reason a country pursues military action is because they're going to get nuked if they don't? Do you really believe that?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
GOP Hawks will love this - USS Ponce gets a facelift & all expense-paid tour to the Middle East
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:00:37 PM

Hopefully we will not have troops in the Middle East too much longer.

I wouldn't hold your breath.


As for allies? I have no clue who that would be. If you're speaking of Israel ... well, dream on. Israel is not in it for anyone but Israel. At least that's the way the Zionists have been playing it so far. If the Zionists were our ally, they would be with us in Afghanistan and they would have helped us in Iraq, but they are not. That should be good proof that they are not our ally. they

You don't know what you're talking about. Really, there's just not really much else worth saying here.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
GOP Hawks will love this - USS Ponce gets a facelift & all expense-paid tour to the Middle East
Posted: 2/6/2012 7:29:14 AM

Why do we need to have such a ship in the Middle East? It's not the job of the US to oversee anything in the Middle East.

Because we have troops and allies in the Middle East.


If that were the case ... not out of the ordinary ... then why doesn't such a warship already exist?

Either a) it does, and we needed another one, or b) this specific role hasn't been required in the ME before.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
GOP Hawks will love this - USS Ponce gets a facelift & all expense-paid tour to the Middle East
Posted: 2/5/2012 10:37:36 AM
Other than your usual mischaracterizing and throwing temper tantrums in ways that do not even tangentially relate to the topic, I don't see what is so remarkable about this.

They're taking an old ship, retrofitting it, and pressing it into continued service to fill a needed role. Okay, this isn't that out of the ordinary...

So what?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Jobless rate falls to lowest since Obama took office
Posted: 2/5/2012 10:34:45 AM

The point is that, while things are undoubtedly worse than we're told, they are improving.

I don't understand how this is quantified if, as has been demonstrated, the numbers produced do not (and cannot) demonstrate this. If unemployment claims are falling off because people have been jobless so long they are falling off the back end of the count, that doesn't sound like things are getting better. Kind of the opposite.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Is space the last frontier....of socialism ?
Posted: 2/5/2012 10:21:01 AM
Sorry I thought what you meant was what you said:


All we need to do is get rid of a bunch of useless military spending.


Also, getting rid of any significant portion of our military spending would necessitate that Europe and our allies in the Pacific start shouldering some of the burden.

The military spending is not useless. It's spent on things that it needs to be spent on, it just doesn't need to be only us doing it. The current situation leaves us holding the bill for defending and securing Europe, northern Africa, the Persian gulf, the southeast Asian states, and the Pacific at large, and then add in our own borders and waters. And lately, we've taken up the additionally responsibility of patrolling the eastern edge of Africa and securing all maritime traffic originating in the Suez Canal.

Maybe someone else can pitch in?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Jobless rate falls to lowest since Obama took office
Posted: 2/4/2012 5:13:55 PM
Am I reading this right, that the jobless rate didn't actually fall, there are just fewer NEW unemployed people than there were last month?

Also,

It matters not if jobless rate goes down or further up. The GOD need to white knight if they want to get in the white house because neither Romney or Gingrich is capable of being Obama in the next election.

Can someone translate this to English?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Is space the last frontier....of socialism ?
Posted: 2/4/2012 5:11:32 PM
If you think military spending is the only thing we need to cut, you just can't be reasoned with.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Is space the last frontier....of socialism ?
Posted: 2/4/2012 12:26:24 PM
We cannot afford NASA. As awesome as it would be to have a cool space program and all that, this is reality.

We cannot keep paying everyone's food and medical bills, maintain 11 carrier battle groups, and still have an advanced space program. The country does not make enough wealth to do that much and still have new cars, big screens, and keep their AC at 65. Politicians don't seem to grasp that labor, energy, and goods don't come out of nowhere, and this is why we are running such huge deficits.

Budgets to them are abstract figures that they try and play numbers games with. In reality, it represents how much time and labor you are taking from the people, and there isn't enough to go around.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Rick Santorum
Posted: 1/31/2012 9:33:52 PM

I do not watch "youtubes" because I prefer to respond (in the forums) to written posts.

Got anything you can post that is ... oh let's see ... the written word?

I agree with this sentiment. I hate having to address Youtube videos.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Here we go again ... Leon Panetta warns Iran to keep Strait of Hormuz open ... OR ELSE!
Posted: 1/17/2012 2:11:08 AM

If you ask me, the best thing that could happen is if Iran goes nuclear. It will help to balance out things over there.

LOL

I always love reading this forum. Really is a great way to put myself into perspective.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Here we go again ... Leon Panetta warns Iran to keep Strait of Hormuz open ... OR ELSE!
Posted: 1/16/2012 12:12:56 PM

Well I'm pretty sure that Iran is not the only Middle Eastern country using that waterway to ship their oil. But I guess the other countries like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE don't have a Navy?

Ah... pretty much the whole world uses that waterway.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Here we go again ... Leon Panetta warns Iran to keep Strait of Hormuz open ... OR ELSE!
Posted: 1/14/2012 12:13:11 PM

If their exports thru the straights are banned as is proposed and is the reason for the threat, then they've got little to lose.

They still have plenty to lose. For instance, their entire navy. Which is coincidentally what they will lose if they commit to attacking shipping vessels in international waterways. Which is what they're threatening to do.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Here we go again ... Leon Panetta warns Iran to keep Strait of Hormuz open ... OR ELSE!
Posted: 1/13/2012 3:49:10 PM


Maybe if we'd stop with the constant saber rattling, Iran wouldn't feel the need to resort to such measures.

I think they have a right to protect themselves against other bully nations ... the US included.

More saber rattling from the US:

At a time of heightened tensions with Iran, U.S. military officials told CNN Friday that U.S. military and Coast Guard ships had two close encounters earlier this month with high-speed Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf that exhibited provocative behavior.

The incidents occurred January 6, according to a senior U.S. military official.

The USS New Orleans, an amphibious transport ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf last Friday when three Iranian Navy speed boats rapidly approached within 500 yards of the ship, the official said. The Iranians did not respond to whistle signals or voice queries from the New Orleans. The lack of response disregards standard maritime protocols, the official said. The boats eventually broke away.
.........
While the U.S. Navy has had routine encounters with Iranian naval forces for years, the Navy has reported seeing more aggressive action in recent weeks from Iranian-flagged vessels. Typically, Iranian small boats are operated by forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps force and are considered to be more aggressive than regular Iranian forces.


http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/exclusive-u-s-harassed-by-iranian-ships/

Just typical that those damn Yanks won't just leave those poor Iranians alone out in transit waterways. What imperialistic monsters!
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Rick Santorum
Posted: 1/13/2012 12:37:42 PM
Rick Santorum is the closest to an insane, delusional zealot that we have in the running for president. 4 years under Santorum could prove to be even worse than 4 more years under Obama.

And I don't say such things lightly.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Here we go again ... Leon Panetta warns Iran to keep Strait of Hormuz open ... OR ELSE!
Posted: 1/11/2012 10:11:22 PM
Let's be clear. Iran is not talking about "defending itself". They're talking about shutting down every other country's shipping through international waters. They're talking about firing on American, British, and German merchant ships. Guess what. If they do that, then yes, they're going to get a showdown with the US Navy. And they'll have earned that mark in the L column. The only thing to take comfort in is that they know this. I feel confident they remember the sting the US Navy can put on theirs.


Why is a situation like this just the responsibility of the US?

Basically, because the United States Navy is more powerful than twice the combined navies of the rest of the world. Apparently we're okay with bearing the cost of the defense of the rest of the world.

What a bunch of suckers we are.



IF I had the inclination and the time I am quite sure I could come up with spreadsheets and stats that would show who our biggest trading partners were and which countries contributed most to our economy and I am damn sure the USA would not be at the top.

You would be really, really, really wrong. There's a reason the Chinese buy US treasuries at a far greater rate than any other investment vehicle. And it's not because they're currying political favor.


America MAY have the biggest economy and it MAY have the biggest market -- But if its in debt to its eyeballs. I think I would rather play with the Asian countries who have a lot more going on, who are expanding....That's my choice of playmate

To me, this (and its preceding paragraph) appear to be naked anti-Americanism, which is fine, but at least be up front about it, because your reasons are pure bogus. First of all, if you compare the UK and the US, it's pretty clear that your debt problem makes ours look like we merely missed a credit card payment.

Second, you're saying you'd rather go "play" with the Asian countries who have a) less of a market, and b) less of an economy. And your reasons are because they have... growth? The American economy is still one of the fastest growing in the world, and we are still the top consumer. Feel free to go "play" with the Asian countries. Just don't wear your nice clothes. Save those for occasions they'll blend in, like when you go to the theater with the Americans, instead of the sandbox with the Asians.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
2008 Voter Fraud Investigation Heats Up in Indiana
Posted: 12/11/2011 11:51:18 AM
Big deal happens every election. Seems to happen more on the D side of the aisle, but Republicans have been found doing the same thing.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Do other countries have a pledge of allegiance?
Posted: 12/5/2011 10:13:19 AM
"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of America.
And to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".


I'm a traditionalist like that.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Jobless rate jumps from 5 year high to 6.1 percent
Posted: 12/2/2011 7:44:24 PM
Ah nostalgia. How I miss the Bush unemployment rates...
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
So we have a new contest, how is the king of flip-flops?
Posted: 11/21/2011 6:30:44 PM
Actually it's annoying pissants recycling rumors about people they don't like as if it were gospel that are trying to rewrite the history of Gingrich's marital issues in the 80s.

Seriously. Just because you get a chain mail slamming a politician you don't like doesn't mean it's true. Just because you read it on a polarizing political blog doesn't make it true, either. Christ, a 2 minute google search about the issue would set you straight. You can't even get the basics right. Gingrich's wife requested the divorce.

Stop regurgitating rumors circulated by political extremists. You are the problem with politics in America.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Unraveling of the Herminator?
Posted: 11/3/2011 1:15:34 PM
That's because he consistently advocates a return to the gold standard and the abolition of most of the government.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Rick Perry -
Posted: 10/27/2011 12:36:41 PM
Seriously GOP fans, looking over your list of cartoon characters, don't you think y'all 'd be better off sitting this one out till you can come up wiht a serious and good candidate??

The Democrats didn't. And look how it ended. Their candidate became president.

Why would the Republicans?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 108 (view)
 
Rick Perry -
Posted: 10/26/2011 10:10:05 PM
Perry needs to shut his trap. He's only making people hate him even more. This behavior is probably going to cost him in the next gubernatorial election.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 260 (view)
 
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 10/26/2011 10:04:21 PM

If we all vote the GOP back in, I for one will not be doing so gleefully, but with resignation over the fact that I have a choice between fools and thieves as leaders.

Are you saying that only Republicans are fools and thieves? Or that both party's are?
Can you share the reasoning behind this conclusion? What makes one or both these things?

Looked to me like he was saying one was fools, the other thieves, and he had to choose between one or the other. If I had to guess, I'd say Democrats fools, Republicans thieves? Always kinda was the stereotype in my head? Or as one of my buddies always says, "Republicans evil, Democrats stupid".
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Gadhafi Is Dead
Posted: 10/23/2011 9:18:24 PM
Ok. I give. It's a global conspiracy.

NATO is an arm of American imperialism. Despite the fact the US doesn't operate an empire. Nor is it autocratic. But we'll keep calling it "imperialism", despite "imperialism" being excluded by its very definition.

But it sounds bad. So we'll keep calling America it.

On your last made up point, no, Libyans don't consider themselves African. They consider themselves Arab.

Americans consider themselves Americans when they are from American. That's a nationality, not an ethnicity. Arab is an ethnicity.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Gadhafi Is Dead
Posted: 10/23/2011 7:10:52 PM
The African Gold Dinar will easily dominate the USd, the Franc, the Pound because it is based on something tangible, gold. Unlike the American and European currencies that are fiat based meaning they are worth something because this gun in my hand says so.

That's precisely why the Dinar WON'T succeed. American and European currencies are worth what people will pay for them. Nobody is setting by force the value of the dollar. The market bears its worth. Hence why people who have other currencies are willing to trade currencies at a certain non-zero rate.


Just because the international banks have kept the Africans down does not mean they will stay down. The Chinese were helping other African nations develop their industries as they were doing in Libya. The Chinese have a symbiotic relationship with the Africans that benefits both. The US and the Europeans relationship with the Africans is parasitic.

Kept the Africans down? Seriously? You know how many hundreds of millions of dollars western countries pump into African countries every year? Why is this logic just applicable to Africans? Does the United States and its international evil cabal of conspiratorial masterminds not worry about countries like China developing the most dominant currency? After all, they boast the largest potential workforce, the fastest growing economy, and a haven of educational advancements. Why doesn't the (I assume Jewish?) conspiracy target China to oppress and keep down? Does actually having economic strength disqualify them from being an economic threat to the west? That is the only explanation for your logic.

But no, it's the Africans, with no capital to invest in industry, no educational institutions to speak of, no cultural homogeneity to unite the continent as a state, no unified leadership... it's the Africans that the conspiracy is aimed against because they could take over the world. And they start with Libya, who has little in common with the rest of the continent and little interest in changing that. Amazing.


The US economy may be large but it is based on thievery and enslavement of other countries and borrowed money. The implosion will be spectacular.

Econ really isn't your strong point, is it...

Not to sound like I'm really rubbing in the mocking of this whole absurd narrative you're pushing, but you do realize that you're accusing NATO of holding down an entire continent's economic and political unity by attacking a country that wouldn't have anything to do with it, right? You realize Libya is an Arab state, right? It's part of the Middle East. It isn't regionally related to countries like Sudan, Congo, Ethiopa, or Angola, who could actually care about and benefit from an African union.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Gadhafi Is Dead
Posted: 10/23/2011 1:37:34 PM
NATO is just an arm of US imperialism. NATO didn't topple a dictator it destroyed the movement to a United States Of Africa. It placated the Federal Reserve by halting the impending dominance of the African Gold Dinar.

Sometimes you people say stuff that's so unbelievably absurd it leaves me damn near speechless. There's literally nothing to do but just openly mock people who say things like this. No one has the patience to actually intelligently argue it, because there's no intelligent argument.

I mean, seriously, United States of Africa? Like that's even possible on that continent? The top half of Africa cares very little for the bottom half, and if there were going to be some sort of movement towards unification of the continent, killing someone like Gaddafi would propel it, not impede it. Dominance of an African currency? Who could actually even think that a possibility that's got even a passing presence in reality? Africa has no industry, no economic clout, and is good for little more than raw resources. The United States' economy is larger than the entire continent of Africa combined. And has political stability that Africa couldn't hope to achieve for centuries, making it an unrealistic investment for currency backing.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
US drops keeping troops in Iraq
Posted: 10/19/2011 8:52:44 PM
Leaving our troops subject to another country's very different set of laws while in American service would be a huge liability. That rightfully should be a deal-breaker. Americans are subject to the American UCMJ while in the service, and should conduct their professional affairs as such while under American command. Good on Obama for holding fast to that and not subjecting our servicemen to that.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 75 (view)
 
What, no one has anything to say
Posted: 10/12/2011 3:15:50 PM
This is really almost too stupid to respond to. You are equating being gay with being disabled. Come on now.

Actually, in the eyes of the military, there's no quantitative difference. As far as the military is (was) concerned, gay and being blind in one are are just both disqualifiers. You have to meet a list of requirements to join the military, both the gay person and the blind one would not meet them. Neither would the one who couldn't walk, of course.

There are protected classes in federal law that you aren't allowed to discriminate for: race, religion, nationality, and gender (though this isn't intact in the military, and in fact there's institutionalized discrimination against males all over the place). Sexual orientation is not one of them. Neither is being blind or being able to walk.


If you are blind, or you can not walk it is likely you will be unable to be a soldier because you can not meet the requirements. Now from what I saw on that video, that soldier who was booed looked pretty buff so there is no doubt in my mind he can do the job. So throwing him out of the army because of his sexual orientation is discrimination.

Disallowing someone who can't walk is discrimination, too. It's discriminating against people who can't walk. It's just legal discrimination. It's legal to discriminate against someone trying to enlist for being gay, as well. Neither immobilized nor gay people given protected classes for those issues.

Soon hopefully discrimination will be federal law. Right now there is some form of protection in 21 differant states including yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act

You read that wiki? That proposed bill would not apply to the military.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 83 (view)
 
Rick Perry -
Posted: 10/12/2011 8:52:09 AM
Doesn't even deny that she doesn't think there's a difference between two people whose only similarity is that they were governor of the same place. And they didn't even govern remotely similarly.

Like I said. Don't bother responding. Everyone already sees it for what it is. No need to raise your blood pressure demonstrating it.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 81 (view)
 
Rick Perry -
Posted: 10/10/2011 11:33:14 PM
Noted, but I think everyone else already realizes my previous point.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 80 (view)
 
Rick Perry -
Posted: 10/10/2011 4:42:00 PM
Doesn't look feasible for Perry to get the nomination. Cain probably will, and I actually think he's the best candidate possible on the (R) side. And he's infinitely more qualified than Obama.

That being said, Apologist, you're not going to win this argument. Perry is a Republican. Bush is a Republican. Therefore they are the same evil racist puppy-killing war-mongering poor-people-hating scum of the earth and there's no difference. At least in Cotter's mind, because somehow, that's how politics work. I wouldn't let yourself be so repeatedly drawn in by posts like those. It's only going to make you want to bash your skull against the desk.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 72 (view)
 
What, no one has anything to say
Posted: 10/6/2011 8:44:02 PM
However, I'd like to hear an exmple of them being less civil than booing gay servicemen


So the official stance is still hold against everyone in every red state or whoever has ever had an (R) next to their name responsible for the behavior of 2 or 3 jackasses in a crowd?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 71 (view)
 
What, no one has anything to say
Posted: 10/5/2011 7:06:50 PM

all they can get out of their mouths is booing.

And by "their", you mean those two people, maybe three.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 67 (view)
 
What, no one has anything to say
Posted: 10/5/2011 9:55:27 AM
All candidates I have ever supported are competent and accomplished enough to

Oh for the love of... that's not even remotely true... Your only qualification for supporting a candidate is that (s)he be a Democrat. You supported Obama. What has he accomplished? Are you even aware that President of the United States is Obama's first full-time job?

You are the most transparent poster here. You rarely make discussion points, and your modus operandi is routinely to attack all that is Republican and defend to the bitter end all that is Democrat, irrespective of what the issue is even about.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 62 (view)
 
What, no one has anything to say
Posted: 10/4/2011 5:29:07 PM
Whoever GOProud is, he's correct. Santorum is a renowned bigot, and more importantly, is an idiot.

While I think that criticizing him for not making some white knight grand gesture of a pandering stand on national TV pretending to be the grand defender of all that is right and anti-meanie is concocted nonsense just looking for things to criticize, I also personally think Santorum probably even agreed with the guys booing. Now perhaps the other candidates didn't, but Santorum hasn't hesitated to go on record in the past as being extremely bigoted towards gays. Like, almost Westboro Baptist-esque kind of bigot.
 
Show ALL Forums