I'm glad the world likes us again.

[barman]

Comparing Jackson to Hitler hno:

There obviously weren't enough Indians to kill for AJ to get anywhere near Hitler's numbers

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZWPd69b6eNg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZWPd69b6eNg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[ScottL]

Again I ask: What business is it of ours?

Seriously, is that your reply to what I just took the time to type?

DEAC I don't understand why you are so self-assured. I'm not saying I'm 100 % sure I'm right. We could mettle, and it could backfire. Or we could stay out and end up with the same results.

Why is it our business? Simple. The leadership of Iran is a despotic regime with an apocolyptic view of the world. When your enemy says he wants you dead, believe him!

1-- A free Iran with a democratic leadership vs
2-- An Iran that sponsors murder of innocents and democratic reformers, and causes upheaval throughout the region, meddling in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and the Palestinian territories,

Whatever the US can do to achieve #1 above is not only safer for the US. It could benefit the entire world, and maybe even cause a domino effect and the end of tyranny in the Middle East.

 

[barman]

How come for us, it's mettling, but if Iran does it, it's meddling?

:drink:

 

[ScottL]

I don't know. I meddled in 2 previous posts. And then I mettled. I guess I shouldn't post while ripping youtube videos into mp3s at the same time.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Seriously, is that your reply to what I just took the time to type?

DEAC I don't understand why you are so self-assured. I'm not saying I'm 100 % sure I'm right. We could mettle, and it could backfire. Or we could stay out and end up with the same results.

Why is it our business? Simple. The leadership of Iran is a despotic regime with an apocolyptic view of the world. When your enemy says he wants you dead, believe him!

1-- A free Iran with a democratic leadership vs
2-- An Iran that sponsors murder of innocents and democratic reformers, and causes upheaval throughout the region, meddling in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and the Palestinian territories,

Whatever the US can do to achieve #1 above is not only safer for the US. It could benefit the entire world, and maybe even cause a domino effect and the end of tyranny in the Middle East.

Look, I'd love to see a free and democratic Iran. Maybe this time we wouldn't overthrow them in favor of a more cooperative dictator. However, you are far too optimistic and I don't think it's worth the life of one American soldier to find out the obvious.

I also think it's interesting how we chose our battles. We sat on our hands while a quarter of a million people were murdered in Darfur, Haiti fell to pieces right in our back yard, North Korea has been a pain in the ass for decades, etc.

Look, I freely admit that I'm an isolationist. That's why I desperately want us to get off foreign oil because the whole fucking area can implode for all I care.

The bottom line is that we have no right to impose our will on sovereign nations, and if we minded our own business many of our problems would go away.

 

[ScottL]

Look, I'd love to see a free and democratic Iran. Maybe this time we wouldn't overthrow them in favor of a more cooperative dictator. However, you are far too optimistic and I don't think it's worth the life of one American soldier to find out the obvious.

DEAC I believe you; we just have different viewpoints on how to best inspire or assist regime change in Iran. Overthrowing democratic forces in 1953 to install the Shah was of course a mistake. This however is not 1953. I'm not claiming we're near the "send the troops in" phase either. I'm just saying it wouldn't be wrong for BO to remind the world of our principles. Again, we are going to be accused of interfering anyway, as that has been Iran's playbook for the past 30 years, reasons for which I typed above.

I also think it's interesting how we chose our battles. We sat on our hands while a quarter of a million people were murdered in Darfur, Haiti fell to pieces right in our back yard, North Korea has been a pain in the ass for decades, etc.

I believe the USA is a benevolent nation, but you have made your point. WE sometimes act in terms of our best interest where security and perceived threats trump doing the right thing. It was wrong to not intervene in Darfur. And that also demonstrates how feckless and corrupt the UN and other world bodies are. Below is a link to a story on Haiti and Bill Clinton. It is very inspiring:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/19/bill-clintons-second-chance-at-haiti/

The politics of the Middle East differ from NK as well as the threat level. I've posted about it before but it's too time-consuming to detail it now. The short version is NK is perceived as less threatening because Kim Jong Il is the real-world version of the cyber-world's gtc08!

Look, I freely admit that I'm an isolationist. That's why I desperately want us to get off foreign oil because the whole fucking area can implode for all I care.

I agree about oil, of course. And maybe 50 years ago I'd agree with your other statement. because these nutjobs couldn't fly here. The world is smaller now, and if you think the ME can implode without the entire world suffering dire consequences I disagree.

The bottom line is that we have no right to impose our will on sovereign nations, and if we minded our own business many of our problems would go away.

It's hard for me to comment on the above because while it seems perfectly reasonable to you, IMO before and after the comma your sentence is contradictory. Anyway I think we pretty much covered it. It's no problem to have a friendly disagreement. By the way, did you know I worked for ESPN in 1969?
:lol:

 

[mplastered]

What would George W. Bush or John McCain be doing differently about Iran?

Why does that matter?

 

[mplastered]

Look, I'd love to see a free and democratic Iran. Maybe this time we wouldn't overthrow them in favor of a more cooperative dictator. However, you are far too optimistic and I don't think it's worth the life of one American soldier to find out the obvious.

I also think it's interesting how we chose our battles. We sat on our hands while a quarter of a million people were murdered in Darfur, Haiti fell to pieces right in our back yard, North Korea has been a pain in the ass for decades, etc.

Look, I freely admit that I'm an isolationist. That's why I desperately want us to get off foreign oil because the whole fucking area can implode for all I care.

The bottom line is that we have no right to impose our will on sovereign nations, and if we minded our own business many of our problems would go away.

Shhhhhh..........be quiet, it will all go away.

 

[PatPatriot]

Do we mind our own business when other countries suffer earthquakes, floods, famine and disease...or just when we're afraid things might get messy?
<!-- / message -->

Good point.

When I started this thread it was never suggested to use any sort of overt military action against Iran.
My suggestion to Obama and anyone else is,Obama ought to use that golden bullshit throat of his to preach from the mountain with wordy fire and brimestone condemnation against the mullahs and for the protesters,you know maybe show some real passion like he does against his enemies like...uhhh...Fox News...private buisness...uhhh..77 year old Inspector generals that do their jobs.

Which brings me to another thought.Maybe Bush was right afterall.Maybe the Iranian people are seeing what they like has transpired in Iraq.Maybe freedom is spreading.But I can understand Obama not wanting anything to with that.

 

[Willie99]

You know Pat, if the Iranian government is overthrown, and I don't see that happening short term, it will be because of Obama's speech.

The President will suggest so, the enablers will enable without any debate and the herd of cheerleaders will be choking on their hay.

 

[PatPatriot]

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
You know Pat, if the Iranian government is overthrown, and I don't see that happening short term, it will be because of Obama's speech

Oh of course.The events and evolution over the previous 8 years never happened.
Even if he hit a string with his speech and there is no follow up,he will be what he is a teleprompter with a suit.
Funny how he never accuses the mullahs of clinging to their religion and suicide bombs.

 

[punter]

He accused another radical extremist group of somthing similar and it didn't work out well for him.

That's what I like about people with high IQ's, they never stop learning.

 

[PatPatriot]

That's what I like about people with high IQ's, they never stop learning. <!-- / message -->

Maybe he can learn some fuckin biness maff.

..or maybe he can learn us about health care RATIONING...do you think his portion for his family will be bigger than you and your family?..know the answer?
I thunk ya do...thats what i like with people with high IQ's.

 

[Willie99]

Obama in Reagan's shoes at the Berlin War

what Ronnie said

man liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!<sup id="cite_ref-text_8-0" class="reference">[9]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's rewrite
</sup>"It is not productive, given the history of US-Russian relations to be seen as meddling - the US president, meddling in Russian affairs," Mr Obama said.
<sup id="cite_ref-text_8-0" class="reference">Mr Gorbachev (pointing at the wall), this wall is none of our business.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure that would have drawn a rousing ovation from the Germans in attendance. LOL

One thing is certain about Obama, he is very uncertain about how to deal with evil in the world.

He prefers cheap non-committal talk and

</sup>

please just go away, with sugar on top
<sup id="cite_ref-text_8-0" class="reference">
</sup>

 

[barman]

You will get your wish in just over 7 years and 7 months from today, at which time both you and I can regale our grandchildren (LOL) about what it was like back in the Good Ol' Days of 2008 before that dastardly Obama became POTUS

 

[barman]

Over/Under on who will have most grandkids by Jan 20, 2017

HuskyFan -180
BullsFan +150

Handy Handicapping info....Both currently* have one adult daughter and one adult son in very young 20s


*Both are pretty sure there will be no new additions at the second generation level unless either HuskyGal or SheBar get hit by a falling piano while walking streets of NYC, thus forcing one or both men to remarry a fertile 30 year old

 

[Willie99]

You will get your wish in just over 7 years and 7 months from today, at which time both you and I can regale our grandchildren (LOL) about what it was like back in the Good Ol' Days of 2008 before that dastardly Obama became POTUS

I was referring to Obama's official position on the remaining members of the axis of evil. I don't ask for anything, except maybe for one's business. Although I occasionally pray for a turnover.

As for Obama, his first set back will be healthcare

the policies he's implemented which the American people don't approve of, read bailouts and deficits and the attempt to nationalize healthcare, will lead to a loss of Democratic seats in 2010. Blaming Bush is already getting old.

2012? Too far off

assuming Obama will win (or lose) in 2012 is something I really can't take too seriously. Experience and history guide my judgment.

 

[punter]

Oh ,healthcare will be fixed one way or the other. It can be reformed now or in a few years when the country is totally bankrupt.

I was born about the start of WWII. The highschool classes 4 years behind mine were twice as large. Those people will hit medicare age in 2 years and as they continue to age it will get worse.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

DEAC I believe you; we just have different viewpoints on how to best inspire or assist regime change in Iran. Overthrowing democratic forces in 1953 to install the Shah was of course a mistake. This however is not 1953. I'm not claiming we're near the "send the troops in" phase either. I'm just saying it wouldn't be wrong for BO to remind the world of our principles. Again, we are going to be accused of interfering anyway, as that has been Iran's playbook for the past 30 years, reasons for which I typed above.

No, it's not 1953, but I assure you that 56 years from now, we are going to look back on the invasion of Iraq and say "Oops". All this interference and war-mongering always seems like a good idea at the time.

I believe the USA is a benevolent nation, but you have made your point. WE sometimes act in terms of our best interest where security and perceived threats trump doing the right thing. It was wrong to not intervene in Darfur. And that also demonstrates how feckless and corrupt the UN and other world bodies are. Below is a link to a story on Haiti and Bill Clinton. It is very inspiring:

[URL="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009...ance-at-haiti/"]http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009...ance-at-haiti/[/URL]

Excellent read. The UN should be disbanded, IMO. For fuck's sake countries like China, Cuba and Sudan were members of the UN's Commission on Human Rights. It's an impotent body that is summarily ignoring its own charter.

The politics of the Middle East differ from NK as well as the threat level. I've posted about it before but it's too time-consuming to detail it now. The short version is NK is perceived as less threatening because Kim Jong Il is the real-world version of the cyber-world's gtc08!

Not sure I agree, but I thoroughly enjoyed the analogy.

I agree about oil, of course. And maybe 50 years ago I'd agree with your other statement. because these nutjobs couldn't fly here. The world is smaller now, and if you think the ME can implode without the entire world suffering dire consequences I disagree.

Yeah, I can agree with that. It was somewhat of a hyperbolic (hopefully festeringZit will be along to let me know if that's even a real word) statement. Those (mainly) kids protesting in Iran deserve to live under a free and democratic government. Sadly, as long as the state and their barbaric religion continue to be intertwined it will never happen for Iran or anyone else in the ME. No Democracy will exist in the ME (outside Israel) until they free themselves from the shackles of their fucked up religion.

It's hard for me to comment on the above because while it seems perfectly reasonable to you, IMO before and after the comma your sentence is contradictory. Anyway I think we pretty much covered it. It's no problem to have a friendly disagreement.

I'm not sure how it's contradictory. I know Hannity has coined the phrase "Blame America First" and it's been spouted on this forum on occasion. It is not unpatriotic to say that many of our problems are of our own making. The current government in Iran, the rise to power of Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were all due to our direct or indirect meddling. Perhaps I can be persuaded differently, but there is absolutely no justification for ANY of our dead soldiers after August 15, 1945.
<!-- / message -->

By the way, did you know I worked for ESPN in 1969?

+1

 

[Daheavy1]

Providing humanitarian aid after a natural disaster is something completely different than meddling in a countries internal affairs. You should know better than to make a false correlation like this.

So is letting ruthless dictators promote acts of genocide humanitarian of us since we should meddle?