DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
Wow, this guy is a total prick. Typical trolls tactics. Hope you're finding your way around The Prison ok. You're gonna be here a long time, champ.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Canadian Ninja:
Do you not remember telling me to get more accurate points? Well, every last one of them turned out accurate, except the mis-statement on Mahoud's "election". I knew what I was saying was accurate and it is NOT my fault that people come in here to troll. They don't have a care in the world about the most serious problems facing the world and they have NO clue what the facts are, other than what they were told, or heard, with NO real context or opinion forming of their own.
If this is your passion, then you would know what the hell your talking about, or it would NOT be your passion. This is my passion. And I expected people to read it with interest (if they enjoy geo-political discussions), and maybe come away with a better understanding.
Everybody has a passion and most of the time it can NOT be taught. You either excell, or you dont. I DO NOT EXCELL AT SPELLING.
And for people questioning my degree... If you want to act like Donald trump... watch out.
1. When citing statistics, show the proof from a trusted third party. (Fox News should not be one, as they are horribly biased)
2. Don't get bent out of shape when someone disagrees or asks for proof. They are having a discussion/debate. If you want someone to constantly agree with everything you say, go find a lackey..
3. This is a big one. Don't with hold information as an "ace" as then you look like an idiot.
How can I take your points seriously when half of what your asking doesn't apply?
I never cited Fox News and NEVER would. Again, you guys totaly mis-characterise what I say, so when new people come into the discussion, they get faulty talking points from you. All I hear is the same "your a moron" and "you can't spell", from every poster who joins in. There is no debate. There can't be. I was right on substance. You guys got proved wrong. So if i am a moron for not spelling right, what does that make you for losing the real argument? Debate on the merrits!
You didn't win on substance, because all that was there were your statements with no proof to back them.
I used Fox News mainly because I saw you make a comment about them earlier, and wanted to make sure you wouldn't use them.
And they don't apply? Let's take a look shall we, because I wrote them specifically out of what I saw from you.
1. Cite sources; Typical High School level essay writing point. Seems to apply to this situation.
Your problem is with style, NOT substance.
Part 1
First off, This gets speculated atleast twice a year since George Bush declared Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil", in his 2003 "State of the Union" adress. And under the Obama Admin, Iran has steped up It's agressive behavior and defiance of the world community. Rather it be further misleading I.A.E.A. inspectors, continuing against the NNPT, or defying more rounds of U.N. sanctions.
In this thread I will be looking at all dementions of Iranian behavior, the cost of war (political, economic, and casualties), our strategic allies, what a military first strike might look like and it's fall-out (consequences, unintended or forseen), the Iranian responce, and what the Obama Admin might be looking at.
Continuation to Part 2...
Most people will probably not be reading beyond this opening thread because it's hard to listen to politics from someone who misspells every other word. Spellcheck is your friend.
Really? Cite souces on a Wrestling forum? Really? Are you grading this? And if you knew what you were talking about, you would not have needed souces, you would have known the information was correct. The fact that you needed sources shows you didn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Your problem is with style, NOT substance. The only thing I mis-stated was Mahmoud's election being in 03, when it was '05. Tell me, exactly what did I get wrong? There is 9 or 10 post to chose from. I provided proof that every counter-point was wrong.
If it was wrestling related, then no it wouldn't matter. When you give stuff to back up your claims, you don't get the "your a moron" and actually get some respect. I showed you proof to my claims, and after you did the same and now I respect at the very least your opinion on the Arab League's vote for the No-Fly Zone. But you are misguided, not wrong, but misguided
I gave more than that one link backing up my "Arab League" claims of support. Which supported us 21-0. I also gave you real information on what the Arab nations are doing behind the scences to press us into war with Iran. And these Arab leaders know a lot more about what they are trying to accomplish than your friends.
I callenge you to read the entire article backing up my analysis. Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
Then I want to hear you answer the questions I asked and tell me exactly what it is that I said that was inaccurate. I like you Ninja; a fun debate
I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place.
My PM privlages have been stripped for being in prison. So I guess I'll make my last points, then give you the last word.
A nuclear Iran means a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East.
The Arab and persion worlds are filled with historical tension and mis-trust. Add to that the fact that Arab nations are mainly Sunni, while Persion nations are mainly Shi'ite. Sunni's and Shia's are mortal enemies and have even participated in "Ethnic Cleansing " against eachother and have faught many wars based purley on these differences.
Note: Saudi Arabia would be Iran's first retaliatary strike. Mainly it's oil fields.
I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place.
I read it already. All I asked for was proof of your claims, that way at least I had something more then just your word to go off of. But there is some anti-American feelings across much of the middle east. So yes, the government and the Arab League can push the US and other western nations to war, but it can happen at a very big cost to said leaders own place.
My PM privlages have been stripped for being in prison. So I guess I'll make my last points, then give you the last word.
A nuclear Iran means a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East.
The Arab and persion worlds are filled with historical tension and mis-trust. Add to that the fact that Arab nations are mainly Sunni, while Persion nations are mainly Shi'ite. Sunni's and Shia's are mortal enemies and have even participated in "Ethnic Cleansing " against eachother and have faught many wars based purley on these differences.
Note: Saudi Arabia would be Iran's first retaliatary strike. Mainly it's oil fields.
If you can, link me to the Arab/Persian thing. I think the Sunni and Shi'ite's are kind of like the Catholic's and Protestant's of the Islamic beliefs. Believe in the same thing, just do it differently. I'm sure there have been wars, heck there have been struggles among different religious beliefs every which way. No doubt some Ethnic Cleansing attempts, as neither side of actually succeeded against one another, but I put that up to the more extremists trying to do it rather then it's the Muslim community as a whole wanting to rid themselves of the other.
As for Iran's strike, if it's before a US attack (which would be stupid on every front regardless of the President, in both logistics, morale of the troops as well as the country as a whole getting pissed off for more un-needed bloodshed) I'd throw it more towards US bases first and Israel being second , with Saudi Arabia being a very close third on Iran's hit list. (Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terr...ssile-as-Strait-of-Hormuz-posturing-continues). Now, there is speculation at a joint US/Israel covert war on Iran, which if it is true, would be very damning for President Obama in my opinion as with the way morale and logistics have been for the Afghan and Iraq War very strained, another large scale war, like the one with Iran would be, could throw the US and possibly the world into an even worse recession.
If you can, link me to the Arab/Persian thing.
As for Iran's strike, if it's before a US attack I'd throw it more towards US bases first and Israel being second , with Saudi Arabia being a very close third on Iran's hit list
That was a very well writen post and I admire peole like you who can make attempts at learning more about geo-political issues.
You do not have to provide me with links, LOL, on this subject I will automoaticly know if it's accurate. But feel free to correct me but I think the U.S. jst finished pulling out all major bases in SA. And I'm pretty sure if Iran had their head on straight they would attack the Oil feilds which are much more strategic and vital to SA. An economic hit like that would do 1,000 times greater dammage than having their 1980's style soviet scuds, shot down. And here is the Arab/Persian link: ( I will provide a Sunni/Shi'ite link in my next post)
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html
That was a very well writen post and I admire peole like you who can make attempts at learning more about geo-political issues.
You do not have to provide me with links, LOL, on this subject I will automoaticly know if it's accurate. But feel free to correct me but I think the U.S. jst finished pulling out all major bases in SA. And I'm pretty sure if Iran had their head on straight they would attack the Oil feilds which are much more strategic and vital to SA. An economic hit like that would do 1,000 times greater dammage than having their 1980's style soviet scuds, shot down. And here is the Arab/Persian link: ( I will provide a Sunni/Shi'ite link in my next post)
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/09/170927.html
They could do more damage actually by shutting off that straight they were working out of (I forget it's name). They cut off 20% of oil from the West, and take a lot of money out of Saudi Arabia's pocket without firing a missle. Continue the blockade, and a lot of problems will arise for Western Countries. If Iran just attacks Saudi Arabia, then it would be between them and possibly the UN (who won't authorize the mobilization of any army of it's members in any violent manner until provoked. Look at Sommalia, and Afghanistan which were UN sanctioned wars.) No United Nations member nation can go to war without authorization, so Saudi Arabia can ask for an attack all they want, but until provoked, the US nor any other UN nation can really do anything.
Also, you said "If Iran had their head on straight". I think that's a mighty big IF, as you have the Sunni/Shi'ite problem, but also the anti-Americanism known in Iran, and the long documented issue with Israel. You could almost make it a gamble on which will be first on their list. All of which could draw in the UN in some manner, two would cause the US to make a more serious war effort. But a war effort from the US would be a bad idea, as stated above with logistics and the morale of the troops. I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't be good for the US to get into another overt conflict.
They could do more damage actually by shutting off that straight they were working out of (I forget it's name). They cut off 20% of oil from the West, and take a lot of money out of Saudi Arabia's pocket without firing a missle. Continue the blockade, and a lot of problems will arise for Western Countries. If Iran just attacks Saudi Arabia, then it would be between them and possibly the UN (who won't authorize the mobilization of any army of it's members in any violent manner until provoked.
I can garuntee you one thing; If Iran actually tried to put a Naval Blockade on the Straight of Hormuz, (which they can't militarily do it) The U.S. would waste NO time in sinking every last Iranian ship in the area. A Naval blockaid of international shipping lanes is an act of war and no U.N. S.C. resolution would be needed for the U.S. and Nato (who act independantly from the U.N) to destroy the Iranian Navy and the ENTIRE AL/GCC would support it. Sorry.