0
   

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Forums: Politics, Iran, Usa
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 07:30 am
snood wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Do we really need a name calling fest, when the topic itself is far more interesting?


You notice I don't respond to him any more. don't blame me!! :wink:

Anon


The good old "stick your head in the sand" tactic. Gotta love it.


Nope - it's the "ignore an idiot" tactic.
Damn, snood. You beat me to it!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:18 am
The only idiots here are those that choose to use that language.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:21 am
Now now children. It's time to go out and play.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:30 am
I am playing. I'm just tired of the name calling. It is against the spirit and outside the TOS of A2K.

I've lost my temper and told a few people off, but I don't name call (I will label though). One guy here liked the label I gave him so much, that he wore it on his signature sleeve for months.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:34 am
Quote:
I don't name call (I will label though)


rich

why don't all sides just suck it up move on?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:39 am
An American attack on Iran will not stop them acquiring nuclear weapons in the long run, if thats what they want. If anything it will make them more determined to get them and use them at the first opportunity. The Iranians are tough, intelligent, patient and resourceful. They know what war is all about. Moreover God is of course on their side. In contrast, Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld appear more out of touch if not actually mad, by the day. At least Condi Rices plays classical piano to keep herself out of the bunker mentality. But then she like Colin Powell is no longer on message for Iran, having admitted mistakes were made in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:41 am
Revel, there's a big difference between using common slang and common terminology.

If I were to call you an idiot, you'd be rightfully mad and should report my post. If I were to call you a "seasoned member" there isn't a heck of lot to get upset about, or is there?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:43 am
Why is the UN so opposed to Iran getting nuclear weapons?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:47 am
They don't want a nuke in their Kofi....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:50 am
McGentrix wrote:
Why is the UN so opposed to Iran getting nuclear weapons?


Well, the UN's most prominent member, the United States of America, are using all their influence to get the others opposing. They are working quite well with this.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 10:58 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Why is the UN so opposed to Iran getting nuclear weapons?


Well, the UN's most prominent member, the United States of America, are using all their influence to get the others opposing. They are working quite well with this.


That's it Walt? because the US says so?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 11:11 am
It's in the NPT, and most countries have signed that ...

Sometimes, McGentrix, I just don't know if you are joking.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 11:42 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
It's in the NPT, and most countries have signed that ...

Sometimes, McGentrix, I just don't know if you are joking.


Then there is more to this whole situation then just the US and Iran, right? Europe has been trying quite miserably to get Iran to cooperate, now the UN has stepped up with idle threats... who is left to bear the burden of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 12:05 pm
McGentrix wrote:
... who is left to bear the burden of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Israel?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 12:14 pm
Isreal probably already peed in the yellowcake.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 12:50 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Isreal probably already peed in the yellowcake.


No wonder it's yellow Cool

Anon
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 02:14 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Revel, there's a big difference between using common slang and common terminology.

If I were to call you an idiot, you'd be rightfully mad and should report my post. If I were to call you a "seasoned member" there isn't a heck of lot to get upset about, or is there?


Words like radical or the Looney, unpatriotic, godless left, blame America first crowd.... personally I think those kinds of divisive snotty phrases (labels) are more hurtful (for poltical issues) than merely calling someone an idiot. Not only that but sometimes the labels are wrongly applied. Not everyone who is against the Bush policies are liberal democrats, yet they get tarred with the same brush. (I am a liberal democrat; and I don't mind being called one; but that's not always the case.)

Several times I have noticed that posters have used alternate spellings of democrat or liberal and if I remember right those phrases are against the rules here, but other than pointing it out from time to time, I don't think it's all that big a deal.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start anything and I would rather get back to the Iran issue.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 03:31 pm
McG

According to Iran their nuclear program is not aimed at the development of weapons but rather for supplying electric power. Based upon the nuclear proliferation treaty they signed that is indeed permissible. Then why are The US, UN and EU up in arms? Because they do not believe Iran to be telling the truth and that their ultimate purpose is to produce a nuclear weapon.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 06:16 pm
au1929 wrote:
McG

According to Iran their nuclear program is not aimed at the development of weapons but rather for supplying electric power. Based upon the nuclear proliferation treaty they signed that is indeed permissible. Then why are The US, UN and EU up in arms? Because they do not believe Iran to be telling the truth and that their ultimate purpose is to produce a nuclear weapon.


Does Iran need nuclear reactors when they have all that oil? What is the price of oil in Iran, $.03 a gallon?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 06:45 pm
They want to save thir crude oil for export, and develope nuclear energy for national consumption.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability
  3. » Page 15
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/11/2025 at 11:41:33
▲ ▼