Tell me again how Al Qaeda's targets are not legitimate Military targets for a group at war with the U.S. ?

[|Tigers Johnson|]

Ahhh and the name calling begins...your original argument had nothing to do with who were allied with...do not try and change the argument just to suit your own needs.......

Your argument was trying to make Iran look like it was not a fundamentalist state....

Look out...BJ's Shock value might just hit you in the head...


You my dear friend have a very self inflated opinion of yourself.....it's a wonder you ever allow anyone in your presence...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444335' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:27 PM']Not me. What right to we have to be going around forcefully installing new goverments anyway? Its working so well in Iraq dont you think?[/quote]


does it matter that iran is more of a democratic society than another country, if we can all agree that it is not real democracy in either case?

[Guest LoyalFanInGA]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='439795' date='Feb 10 2007, 11:27 PM'][color="#000080"][b]
If you actually knew me in person (and not the personality I play on a message board)[/b][/color][/quote]

Maybe I've misjudged you. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//39.gif[/img]

Remember our first lover's quarrel? You were given a time out from being a moderator, remember? It was fairly easy to manipulate you. You practically suspended yourself after I layed the Jedi mind fuck on you. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//13.gif[/img]

So I'm wondering, how much of this bullshit is what you believe and how much of this bullshit is your "personality" manipulating us into completing your homework assignment?

If it is the latter, that's fucking brilliant. I just don't think your smart enough to pull it off.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='444351' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:42 PM']Your argument was trying to make Iran look like it was not a fundamentalist state....[/quote]

[b]When the hell did I say that ?

I never mentioned anything about fundamentalism [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]



[color="#FF0000"]How would you define a fundamentalist state ?

How would you say that Iran is less of one than Saudi Arabia our allie ? [/b][/color]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='444356' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:45 PM']does it matter that iran is more of a democratic society than another country, if we can all agree that it is not real democracy in either case?[/quote]


Depends, does BJ's point that were allied with more dictatorships in that area then democracies matter?

If you follow the neocon point of view, then you want to have democracy everywhere, because they play nice together.


However thats not the reality of what is going on.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444358' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:48 PM'][b]When the hell did I say that ?

I never mentioned anything about fundamentalism [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]
[color="#FF0000"]How would you define a fundamentalist state ?

How would you say that Iran is less of one than Saudi Arabia our allie ? [/b][/color][/quote]

When you quoted loyalfaninga.....lol your circular logic fooled yourself! lmao

It was your argument against him calling it a fundamentalist state...Wow...just wow

I never said they were less of one than Saudi Arabia

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA' post='444357' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:48 PM']So I'm wondering, how much of this bullshit is what you believe and how much of this bullshit is your "personality" manipulating us into completing your homework assignment?

If it is the latter, that's fucking brilliant. I just don't think your smart enough to pull it off. [/quote]


[b][center]That my friend you will never know [/b]
















[/center]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='444364' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:52 PM']When you quoted loyalfaninga.....lol your circular logic fooled yourself! lmao[/quote]

[b]... you're a powerful kind of stupid [/b]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

Iran's fundamentalist regime is at the heart of the Middle East's problems PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 20 December 2006

NCRI – On the invitation of the largest political grouping at the European Parliament, "European People's Party and European Democrats" (EPP – ED), Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI attended its group meeting on December 12. The following is the text of her speech at the meeting:

I am delighted to be among you today. Even though this meeting had been postponed since June, I am nonetheless pleased that during this period many issues have come to light. Today, the European Court of Justice issued a verdict, annulling the "Council's Common Decision" to include the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the European Union's terrorist list. It also ordered the Council to compensate the PMOI for four fifth of the court costs it had incurred.

This ruling is a testament to the legitimacy of the Iranian people’s Resistance against the religious fascism and the triumph of justice over deals with and appeasement of the religious fascism ruling Iran. This is a great victory for the Iranian people and their Resistance as well as freedom-lovers and the honorable parliamentarians and jurists who worked to have this label removed.

At the same time, the mullahs have organized a conference in Tehran to deny the Holocaust. This is part of the bellicosity and the effort to set the stage for a wider war in the region. This brazen attitude emanates from the West's indulgent attitude in respect of the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and their meddling in Iraq. The mullahs thrive on crisis to ensure their survival.

It has become abundantly clear that negotiations with the mullahs over the nuclear issue have gone nowhere. However, the question still remains, what should be done? Mr. Solana said that for three months the EU tried in vain to convince Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

However, EU governments still hope to come to a deal with the mullahs. Why? On top of economic benefits, I believe that there is an incorrect understanding of the situation in Iran and a miscalculation on the issue of the regime’s capabilities. This is very similar to the incorrect understanding during the final years of the Shah’s rule. Let us bring to mind that one year prior to the fall of the Shah, President Carter described Iran as an “island of stability” and, despite their prevalent presence in Iran, U.S. intelligence agencies said, “Iran is neither in a revolutionary phase, nor even in a pre-revolutionary phase.”

The Iranian people today long for change even more than they did in 1979. The conditions for this change are ready. Despite absolute repression, just yesterday, the students were chanting death to the dictator in defiance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, any policy or investment on Iran must take this reality into consideration.

These days, there is much debate over Iran’s role in Iraq. The report by the Iraqi Study Group correctly highlighted the regime’s increasing meddling in Iraq and its providing of weapons, ammunition, and training to various groups, and quoted an Iraqi Sunni political leader as saying, “If you turn over any stone in Iraq today, you will find Iran underneath.”

Nevertheless, by concluding that the mullahs’ regime seeks stability and unity in Iraq and recommending that the mullahs be involved in resolving the crisis in this country, the report is practically accepting the mullahs’ influence over Iraq. This is a dangerous error, since:

Firstly, the continuation of turmoil in Iraq is to the interest of the Iranian regime. The establishment of stability and democracy in Iraq and peace in the Middle East spells the end of the regime.

Secondly, because of its geopolitical situation, Iraq is a strategic springboard for the mullahs’ regime to export its fundamentalism.

Thirdly, as was witnessed over the nuclear issue, negotiation with the mullahs is futile. Therefore, negotiation with the mullahs over the issue of Iraq only gives them time to expand their influence there.

Fourthly, through its meddling, the mullahs’ regime is the main problem in Iraq. Therefore, as many Iraqi leaders have said and 5.2 million Iraqis have announced in a declaration, the solution lies in the eviction of the mullahs’ regime from Iraq.

The regime’s adventurous policies in Iraq and the Middle East and its insistence to obtain nuclear weapons should not be seen as signs of its strength. This is how the regime is trying to conceal its weakness. The mullahs describe this policy as “strategy to intimidate” or “balance of fear.”

Signs of the regime’s weakness are prominent in three areas:

• A purge of the different currents inside the regime, which still continues, is a sign of its weakness and lack of flexibility.
• The regime's refusal to reach an agreement with the international community over its nuclear program stems from its weakness. Ahmadinejad said, "Retreating a single step would mean the loss of our very existence." The mullahs' regime lacks the capacity to enter into a grand bargain with the West, and specifically the United States, in which all the disputes, including the nuclear standoff, Iraq and the Middle East, could be solved. This is while the U.S.’s critical situation in Iraq, President George Bush's political problems back home and the eagerness of European countries in preserving their commercial ties with Iran have presented the regime with the most favorable conditions to reach a comprehensive settlement.
• The most serious sign of the regime’s weakness should be seen in its attitude towards the Iranian Resistance. The regime's pleas to Mr. Solana and the heads of several EU states to prevent this visit last summer as well as its policy of blackmail to prevent my trips to Belgium and Norway reflect the mullahs' weakness and fragility.

Unfortunately, the EU has given the regime its biggest reward through its conduct towards the Iranian Resistance. This has encouraged the mullahs to the extent that they want to spread their oppression to Europe as well. By labeling the pivotal force within the Iranian Resistance as terrorist, the West has enchained the force of change in Iran, thereby doing the most valuable service to the mullahs and the survival of religious fascism in Iran.

Allow me to conclude:
1. Iran's ruling fundamentalist regime is at the heart of the Middle East's problems - from Iraq to Lebanon. The mullahs are unable to stop their meddling in Iraq; since, they need to export their fundamentalism to ensure the survival of their regime. The mullahs are neither able to halt their warmongering in Lebanon and Palestine, nor their opposition to the Middle East peace process. They benefit from these in safeguarding their regime.
2. The mullahs are unable to reverse their nuclear policy. They need the atomic bomb as the strategic lever to ensure the survival of their regime and impose their hegemony on the region. The experience of four years of nuclear negotiations and the refusal of all incentives by Tehran prove that the mullahs' regime lacks the capacity to reach a settlement with the international community.
3. The West's appeasement policy has made the mullahs more aggressive. Hesitation in dealing with the mullahs is a reminder of the same wrong policy towards Hitler and can have the same dangerous consequences.
4. The time has come for a firm policy towards Tehran. The West should impose sanctions against the mullahs and evict the mullahs from Iraq and the region. It must also recognize the Iranian people's Resistance for freedom.

I said two years ago in this very same building and repeat once again that the solution to this crisis is neither an external military intervention nor the policy of appeasement. There is another solution: democratic change by the Iranian people and their Resistance.

The Iranian Resistance seeks a pluralist republic based on the separation of church and state; gender equality; respect for individual, political and social freedoms; respect for international covenants including those on human rights, civil liberties and women's rights; abolition of the death penalty; free market; and peaceful coexistence and relations with all countries.

I call upon you to stand with the Iranian people in the achievement of these objectives.

[url="http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/448/61/"]Link[/url]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

I loved this quote..I think BJ should make it his signature..

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate.

-Timothy Ball

[Guest LoyalFanInGA]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444333' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:27 PM'][b]See even though I disagree with guys like LoyalGafan .... [/b][/quote]

Ahem...it's LoyalFanInGA. I don't call you OffwhiteJesus.

I would hate for the poor guy called "bengalsfanga" to be blamed for my comments.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444362' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:50 PM']Depends, does BJ's point that were allied with more dictatorships in that area then democracies matter?

If you follow the neocon point of view, then you want to have democracy everywhere, because they play nice together.
However thats not the reality of what is going on.[/quote]

i think that the results are more important than the current facts on the ground... I cannot sit here and play armchair general saying "we shouldn't ally with the saudi's because (fill in) " theoretically, we shoudln't have allied w/ the USSR, but we did and in effect beat both germany and the USSR in the long run...

would i rather have a world where we stuck to our horses, didn't ally with either germany or the USSR, and both are still around throwing around their power? hell no...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='444371' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:58 PM']Iran's fundamentalist regime is at the heart of the Middle East's problems PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 20 December 2006

NCRI – On the invitation of the largest political grouping at the European Parliament, "European People's Party and European Democrats" (EPP – ED), Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI attended its group meeting on December 12. The following is the text of her speech at the meeting:

I am delighted to be among you today. Even though this meeting had been postponed since June, I am nonetheless pleased that during this period many issues have come to light. Today, the European Court of Justice issued a verdict, annulling the "Council's Common Decision" to include the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the European Union's terrorist list. It also ordered the Council to compensate the PMOI for four fifth of the court costs it had incurred.

This ruling is a testament to the legitimacy of the Iranian people’s Resistance against the religious fascism and the triumph of justice over deals with and appeasement of the religious fascism ruling Iran. This is a great victory for the Iranian people and their Resistance as well as freedom-lovers and the honorable parliamentarians and jurists who worked to have this label removed.

At the same time, the mullahs have organized a conference in Tehran to deny the Holocaust. This is part of the bellicosity and the effort to set the stage for a wider war in the region. This brazen attitude emanates from the West's indulgent attitude in respect of the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and their meddling in Iraq. The mullahs thrive on crisis to ensure their survival.

It has become abundantly clear that negotiations with the mullahs over the nuclear issue have gone nowhere. However, the question still remains, what should be done? Mr. Solana said that for three months the EU tried in vain to convince Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

However, EU governments still hope to come to a deal with the mullahs. Why? On top of economic benefits, I believe that there is an incorrect understanding of the situation in Iran and a miscalculation on the issue of the regime’s capabilities. This is very similar to the incorrect understanding during the final years of the Shah’s rule. Let us bring to mind that one year prior to the fall of the Shah, President Carter described Iran as an “island of stability” and, despite their prevalent presence in Iran, U.S. intelligence agencies said, “Iran is neither in a revolutionary phase, nor even in a pre-revolutionary phase.”

The Iranian people today long for change even more than they did in 1979. The conditions for this change are ready. Despite absolute repression, just yesterday, the students were chanting death to the dictator in defiance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, any policy or investment on Iran must take this reality into consideration.

These days, there is much debate over Iran’s role in Iraq. The report by the Iraqi Study Group correctly highlighted the regime’s increasing meddling in Iraq and its providing of weapons, ammunition, and training to various groups, and quoted an Iraqi Sunni political leader as saying, “If you turn over any stone in Iraq today, you will find Iran underneath.”

Nevertheless, by concluding that the mullahs’ regime seeks stability and unity in Iraq and recommending that the mullahs be involved in resolving the crisis in this country, the report is practically accepting the mullahs’ influence over Iraq. This is a dangerous error, since:

Firstly, the continuation of turmoil in Iraq is to the interest of the Iranian regime. The establishment of stability and democracy in Iraq and peace in the Middle East spells the end of the regime.

Secondly, because of its geopolitical situation, Iraq is a strategic springboard for the mullahs’ regime to export its fundamentalism.

Thirdly, as was witnessed over the nuclear issue, negotiation with the mullahs is futile. Therefore, negotiation with the mullahs over the issue of Iraq only gives them time to expand their influence there.

Fourthly, through its meddling, the mullahs’ regime is the main problem in Iraq. Therefore, as many Iraqi leaders have said and 5.2 million Iraqis have announced in a declaration, the solution lies in the eviction of the mullahs’ regime from Iraq.

The regime’s adventurous policies in Iraq and the Middle East and its insistence to obtain nuclear weapons should not be seen as signs of its strength. This is how the regime is trying to conceal its weakness. The mullahs describe this policy as “strategy to intimidate” or “balance of fear.”

Signs of the regime’s weakness are prominent in three areas:

• A purge of the different currents inside the regime, which still continues, is a sign of its weakness and lack of flexibility.
• The regime's refusal to reach an agreement with the international community over its nuclear program stems from its weakness. Ahmadinejad said, "Retreating a single step would mean the loss of our very existence." The mullahs' regime lacks the capacity to enter into a grand bargain with the West, and specifically the United States, in which all the disputes, including the nuclear standoff, Iraq and the Middle East, could be solved. This is while the U.S.’s critical situation in Iraq, President George Bush's political problems back home and the eagerness of European countries in preserving their commercial ties with Iran have presented the regime with the most favorable conditions to reach a comprehensive settlement.
• The most serious sign of the regime’s weakness should be seen in its attitude towards the Iranian Resistance. The regime's pleas to Mr. Solana and the heads of several EU states to prevent this visit last summer as well as its policy of blackmail to prevent my trips to Belgium and Norway reflect the mullahs' weakness and fragility.

Unfortunately, the EU has given the regime its biggest reward through its conduct towards the Iranian Resistance. This has encouraged the mullahs to the extent that they want to spread their oppression to Europe as well. By labeling the pivotal force within the Iranian Resistance as terrorist, the West has enchained the force of change in Iran, thereby doing the most valuable service to the mullahs and the survival of religious fascism in Iran.

Allow me to conclude:
1. Iran's ruling fundamentalist regime is at the heart of the Middle East's problems - from Iraq to Lebanon. The mullahs are unable to stop their meddling in Iraq; since, they need to export their fundamentalism to ensure the survival of their regime. The mullahs are neither able to halt their warmongering in Lebanon and Palestine, nor their opposition to the Middle East peace process. They benefit from these in safeguarding their regime.
2. The mullahs are unable to reverse their nuclear policy. They need the atomic bomb as the strategic lever to ensure the survival of their regime and impose their hegemony on the region. The experience of four years of nuclear negotiations and the refusal of all incentives by Tehran prove that the mullahs' regime lacks the capacity to reach a settlement with the international community.
3. The West's appeasement policy has made the mullahs more aggressive. Hesitation in dealing with the mullahs is a reminder of the same wrong policy towards Hitler and can have the same dangerous consequences.
4. The time has come for a firm policy towards Tehran. The West should impose sanctions against the mullahs and evict the mullahs from Iraq and the region. It must also recognize the Iranian people's Resistance for freedom.

I said two years ago in this very same building and repeat once again that the solution to this crisis is neither an external military intervention nor the policy of appeasement. There is another solution: democratic change by the Iranian people and their Resistance.

The Iranian Resistance seeks a pluralist republic based on the separation of church and state; gender equality; respect for individual, political and social freedoms; respect for international covenants including those on human rights, civil liberties and women's rights; abolition of the death penalty; free market; and peaceful coexistence and relations with all countries.

I call upon you to stand with the Iranian people in the achievement of these objectives.

[url="http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/448/61/"]Link[/url][/quote]





You are really lusting for war with them arent you?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='444384' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:08 PM']i think that the results are more important than the current facts on the ground... I cannot sit here and play armchair general saying "we shouldn't ally with the saudi's because (fill in) " theoretically, we shoudln't have allied w/ the USSR, but we did and in effect beat both germany and the USSR in the long run...

would i rather have a world where we stuck to our horses, didn't ally with either germany or the USSR, and both are still around throwing around their power? hell no...[/quote]



Ok you lost me in reference to Iran and what Germany and the USSR have to do with that.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444385' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:09 PM']You are really lusting for war with them arent you?[/quote]


[b]Maybe he bought stock in the Carlysle group or Bechtel ? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/39.gif[/img]


That or charred dead Muslims give him a boner.





I will guess the latter. [/b]

[Actium]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='444384' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:08 PM']i think that the results are more important than the current facts on the ground... I cannot sit here and play armchair general saying "we shouldn't ally with the saudi's because (fill in) " theoretically, we shoudln't have allied w/ the USSR, but we did and in effect beat both germany and the USSR in the long run...

would i rather have a world where we stuck to our horses, didn't ally with either germany or the USSR, and both are still around throwing around their power? hell no...[/quote]

The USSR beat themselves. Gorby was one of the worst leaders ever. Typical guy who is too smart for his own good, and thinks everyone thinks they same way he does. A naive fool who gave up an empire for idealism.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444389' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:12 PM']Ok you lost me in reference to Iran and what Germany and the USSR have to do with that.[/quote]



you don't? i didn't think that was very complicated...

i said:[i] i agree also..

my point is that the solviet union was more of a democratic society than nazi germany...

in other words, who cares?[/i]

you said: [i]Not me. What right to we have to be going around forcefully installing new goverments anyway? Its working so well in Iraq dont you think? [/i]

<i was going to say a similar statement here to you, but i wanted to continue the "debate"...

then i said: [i]does it matter that iran is more of a democratic society than another country, if we can all agree that it is not real democracy in either case? [/i]

and you replyed back with: [i]Depends, does BJ's point that were allied with more dictatorships in that area then democracies matter?

If you follow the neocon point of view, then you want to have democracy everywhere, because they play nice together.


However thats not the reality of what is going on. [/i]

and then i said: [i]i think that the results are more important than the current facts on the ground... I cannot sit here and play armchair general saying "we shouldn't ally with the saudi's because (fill in) " theoretically, we shoudln't have allied w/ the USSR, but we did and in effect beat both germany and the USSR in the long run...

would i rather have a world where we stuck to our horses, didn't ally with either germany or the USSR, and both are still around throwing around their power? hell no... [/i]


thats how we got to comparing this to the USSR and germany...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Actium' post='444392' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:14 PM']The USSR beat themselves. Gorby was one of the worst leaders ever. Typical guy who is too smart for his own good, and thinks everyone thinks they same way he does. A naive fool who gave up an empire for idealism.[/quote]

i think that if the gov't was a strong as percieved, it would have lived through bad leadership... hell, we had jimmy running things just before their collapse and we made it through him...

but point taken...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='444401' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:22 PM']

you don't? i didn't think that was very complicated...

i said:[i] i agree also..

my point is that the solviet union was more of a democratic society than nazi germany...

in other words, who cares?[/i]

you said: [i]Not me. What right to we have to be going around forcefully installing new goverments anyway? Its working so well in Iraq dont you think? [/i]

<i was going to say a similar statement here to you, but i wanted to continue the "debate"...

then i said: [i]does it matter that iran is more of a democratic society than another country, if we can all agree that it is not real democracy in either case? [/i]

and you replyed back with: [i]Depends, does BJ's point that were allied with more dictatorships in that area then democracies matter?

If you follow the neocon point of view, then you want to have democracy everywhere, because they play nice together.
However thats not the reality of what is going on. [/i]

and then i said: [i]i think that the results are more important than the current facts on the ground... I cannot sit here and play armchair general saying "we shouldn't ally with the saudi's because (fill in) " theoretically, we shoudln't have allied w/ the USSR, but we did and in effect beat both germany and the USSR in the long run...

would i rather have a world where we stuck to our horses, didn't ally with either germany or the USSR, and both are still around throwing around their power? hell no... [/i]
thats how we got to comparing this to the USSR and germany...[/quote]



I think where you lost me is what your desired result are in Iran.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444405' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:26 PM']I think where you lost me is what your desired result are in Iran.[/quote]

which is what exactly?

[Actium]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='444404' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:24 PM']i think that if the gov't was a strong as percieved, it would have lived through bad leadership... hell, we had jimmy running things just before their collapse and we made it through him...

but point taken...[/quote]

But in Soviet society, their leader was nearly all-powerful, so a bad one hurts a lot more than in our society, where the leader is really the instrument of bureaucrats and interests. A republic is known for a steady mediocrity, and a dictatorship has periods of towering brilliance and periods of staggering ineptitude. With Gorby, they hit rock bottom and that was that.

It's like their system could only run with a man like Stalin in charge. They did need to get a younger guy in charge, but Gorby was delusional about what he could do. People give him credit for changing the system--but what happened was unintended results.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='444409' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:27 PM']which is what exactly?[/quote]



My desired results with Iran is peacefull negotiation in which if they must have nuclear technology they allow open inspections (and not like Iraq did) by the UN to make sure they arent turning that into weapons. War should not happen. Their form of goverment means nothing to me, thus why fight them to change it?

Im not following what your desired results are.

[Guest LoyalFanInGA]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='444365' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:53 PM'][b][center]That my friend you will never know [/b]


[/center][/quote]

Afraid we would stop the mental jousting if this were merely an exercise?

Well, I'm off to widen the hole in the ozone layer by burning more of those 'liberated' fossil fuels in my American built Harley-Davidson. If I happen to see Bono about I'll let him know you have his crown as the King of the World's Social Consciousness.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA' post='444415' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:34 PM']Afraid we would stop the mental jousting if this were merely an exercise?

Well, I'm off to widen the hole in the ozone layer by burning more of those 'liberated' fossil fuels in my American built Harley-Davidson. If I happen to see Bono about I'll let him know you have his crown as the King of the World's Social Consciousness.[/quote]


Hey now I happen to like Bono alot thank you.

And there is nothing wrong with being Socially Conscious. (Helping those in need is a good thing)


But if you want to pick on a Socially Conscious celeb, go after Sally Struthers..... I bet she eats all the African's food anyway, like in that episode of South Park.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444385' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:09 PM']You are really lusting for war with them arent you?[/quote]
Not at all....If their current leadership keeps going down their current path...the people of Iran might just do it themselves...

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='444413' date='Feb 22 2007, 04:33 PM']My desired results with Iran is peacefull negotiation in which if they must have nuclear technology they allow open inspections (and not like Iraq did) by the UN to make sure they arent turning that into weapons. War should not happen. Their form of goverment means nothing to me, thus why fight them to change it?

Im not following what your desired results are.[/quote]

Could not agree more.....but the question is..will Iran budge. My feeling is that their next desire is for control of Iraq's oil and other resources. Unfortunately, if we can not stabilize Iraq we may have just given it to them on a silver platter.