Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Do you hate hippies?
  • Subject: Do you hate hippies?
Subject: Do you hate hippies?


Posted by: Jagdflieger

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Hippie logic
meme=/=reality

douche

Calling someone names =/= you being cool.

Clearly you missed the joke.

  • 11.27.2012 1:54 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
Kuwait was being invaded for literally no good reason, they were defenseless and no one was going to help them. If you saw someone being beat up on the street for no reason, would you really turn your back to him? Also, the Middle East is HUGE business with us. We're not striking against countries "that might" attack us. We're striking against countries that have full blown stated they WILL attack us. You think Iran is trying to develop Nuclear power to run their cities? Please, they just want to nuke us off the map.

So we're allowed to have nukes, but Iran's not? And you're blowing this out of proportion. In no time or place has Iran ever said that they will straight up attack us.

And your analogy isn't relevant to what we're talking about.

  • 11.27.2012 1:56 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Garem
In no time or place has Iran ever said that they will straight up attack us.

Herp de derp, maybe because they don't want us to invade them.

"Yeah, we are just gonna let you know right now that once we have nukes, we are going to attack America with full force."
*Uncle Sam invades Iran*
"-blam!-."

  • 11.27.2012 1:59 PM PDT

1. America hasn't used a Nuke since WWII, which seems to be the only war you're willing to defend.
2. I'll just leave this here.
3. No it is VERY relevant to what we're talking about. You're claiming that the U.S. should butt out of others business yet that business directly involves harm to the U.S. clearly.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

EDIT: Also, what Agent posted above me added with #2.

Posted by: Garem
So we're allowed to have nukes, but Iran's not? And you're blowing this out of proportion. In no time or place has Iran ever said that they will straight up attack us.

And your analogy isn't relevant to what we're talking about.


[Edited on 11.27.2012 2:01 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 2:00 PM PDT

Posted by: The Kangol Kid
It was then that I decided he really is like semen(everywhere) and I gave up on life.


zoobkillerninja <3

Posted by: kikashi hatake
Yes, because they are protesting against the heroes protecting their ass.
I swear you live under a rock, next to a stream that is near a mountain.


OT: Of course not.

  • 11.27.2012 2:00 PM PDT

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Garem
In no time or place has Iran ever said that they will straight up attack us.

Herp de derp, maybe because they don't want us to invade them.

"Yeah, we are just gonna let you know right now that once we have nukes, we are going to attack America with full force."
*Uncle Sam invades Iran*
"-blam!-."
Again, look at my Cuban Missile Crisis comparison.

We should never declare war on a country to prevent war with a country.

  • 11.27.2012 2:00 PM PDT

We didn't declare war on any country over that. That makes no sense.

Posted by: Garem
Again, look at my Cuban Missile Crisis comparison.

We should never declare war on a country to prevent war with a country.

  • 11.27.2012 2:02 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
1. America hasn't used a Nuke since WWII, which seems to be the only war you're willing to defend.
2. I'll just leave this here.
3. No it is VERY relevant to what we're talking about. You're claiming that the U.S. should butt out of others business yet that business directly involves harm to the U.S. clearly.

1. Iran hasn't used a nuke since never.
2. First off, the man who said that wasn't the highest Iranian authority. That means there's room for diplomacy. Secondly, he said he would attack American military bases in the middle east, not America itself.
3. It would be relevant if we would've helped Kuwait with no ulterior motive.

  • 11.27.2012 2:04 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
We didn't declare war on any country over that. That makes no sense.

Posted by: Garem
Again, look at my Cuban Missile Crisis comparison.

We should never declare war on a country to prevent war with a country.

That's my point. Are you just skimming over my replies?

Kennedy was urged by every adviser he had to scrap diplomacy and go with a first-strike policy. Sound familiar? If he would've done that, our world would be ash.

  • 11.27.2012 2:05 PM PDT

So Says Shadroxon.

Nope.

Peace and love, bro. Peace and love.

  • 11.27.2012 2:05 PM PDT

1. How often have we ever used nukes since WWII? Whining about us having Nukes is pointless if we only used them in one war and that was over 70 years ago.
2. So if Iran attacks a U.S. military base in the Middle East we should just say "Screw it, a base isn't a big deal to us!"? I don't think you understand, Iran is run by Radicals and Fanatics.
3. What ulterior motive did we have? Iraq was willing to sell us Oil at a cheaper cost if we didn't interfere with their Invasion but we stopped them anyways.

Posted by: Garem
1. Iran hasn't used a nuke since never.
2. First off, the man who said that wasn't the highest Iranian authority. That means there's room for diplomacy. Secondly, he said he would attack American military bases in the middle east, not America itself.
3. It would be relevant if we would've helped Kuwait with no ulterior motive.

  • 11.27.2012 2:08 PM PDT

I mega loathe everyone so yes, I do not like hippies.

  • 11.27.2012 2:09 PM PDT

Finally, an American who accepts that they lost the Vietnam War.

Posted by: Gaara444
Yes, they're the reason we lost the Vietnam War.

  • 11.27.2012 2:10 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
1. My point is that Iran has never used a nuke. It's extremely hypocritical to say that they're not allowed to have them, while we hoard hundreds.
2. We shouldn't have bases in the middle east to begin with.
3. We didn't want to buy cheaper oil, we wanted to have vast quantities of cheap oil. Hence, the invasion of Iraq.

[Edited on 11.27.2012 2:11 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 2:10 PM PDT

You're comparing Russia which was a major super power with Nukes at the time, to countries that have no way to cause global conflicts because they don't have nukes.

Posted by: Garem
That's my point. Are you just skimming over my replies?

Kennedy was urged by every adviser he had to scrap diplomacy and go with a first-strike policy. Sound familiar? If he would've done that, our world would be ash.

  • 11.27.2012 2:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
You're comparing Russia which was a major super power with Nukes at the time, to countries that have no way to cause global conflicts because they don't have nukes.

How does that change anything? Does Russia get more credence as a society because they're bigger?

  • 11.27.2012 2:15 PM PDT

1. We don't use nukes ever, we don't even consider them as options on the table for military deployments, yet we're facing countries that WANT to use them for every engagement they're in.
2. Are you serious?! Afghanistan has known terrorist cells that are responsible for attacks against the U.S.. Do you think we killed Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Narnia? No, we found him in Pakistan and we traced him in camps over Afghanistan. That DIRECTLY involves us.
3. I have already stated that I called Iraq a unjustified war. The Gulf War is NOT a part of the Iraq war.

Posted by: Garem
1. My point is that Iran has never used a nuke. It's extremely hypocritical to say that they're not allowed to have them, while we hoard hundreds.
2. We shouldn't have bases in the middle east to begin with.
3. We didn't want to buy cheaper oil, we wanted to have vast quantities of cheap oil. Hence, the invasion of Iraq.

  • 11.27.2012 2:15 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
1. A desire and an action are two different things.
2. We don't need to have military bases across the entire swath of the middle east to find one man.
3. The Gulf War led to the Iraq War.

  • 11.27.2012 2:17 PM PDT

Russia can cause a global conflict. It was a country with nukes against a country with nukes at a time where we still considered nukes. Now it's a country that doesn't use nukes against a country with no nukes in a time where the former doesn't even consider using them and the latter wants them.

Two totally different play fields.

Posted by: Garem
How does that change anything? Does Russia get more credence as a society because they're bigger?

  • 11.27.2012 2:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Garem
Posted by: Gaara444
1. A desire and an action are two different things.
2. We don't need to have military bases across the entire swath of the middle east to find one man.
3. The Gulf War led to the Iraq War.

1. But a desire leads to an action
2. More forces in more areas increase the odds of finding him.
3. Because we didn't kick Saddam out then.

  • 11.27.2012 2:18 PM PDT

Recon Number 54 -
If they are still looking, then while holding the snarl, I let drool start to drip from my mouth, I stand, curl my fingers into claws and with a hunched over crouch, I then make slow and deliberate steps towards them. When I get close enough, I let them hear my agonized and gasping growls and then, if they continue to stare, when I get within arm's reach? I kiss them on the nose, and run away giggling.

Hey You!

  • 11.27.2012 2:19 PM PDT

Posted by: Gaara444
Russia can cause a global conflict. It was a country with nukes against a country with nukes at a time where we still considered nukes. Now it's a country that doesn't use nukes against a country with no nukes in a time where the former doesn't even consider using them and the latter wants them.

Two totally different play fields.

Posted by: Garem
How does that change anything? Does Russia get more credence as a society because they're bigger?
If anything, this gives us more of a reason to ditch a first-strike policy. Iran can strike us first, and we'll be fine. If Russia stroke first in the Cold War, we would've been screwed.

  • 11.27.2012 2:19 PM PDT

1. The desire leads to the action.
2. He isn't the only one plotting against the U.S.. You're crazy if you think all the terrorist cells in the region just disappeared after we killed him.
3. That's like blaming the U.S. for WWII cause WWI was a cause of it.

Posted by: Garem
1. A desire and an action are two different things.
2. We don't need to have military bases across the entire swath of the middle east to find one man.
3. The Gulf War led to the Iraq War.

  • 11.27.2012 2:19 PM PDT

No, that's horrible logic. We want to minimize the amount of U.S. Military and civilian casualties, not throw them away to get rid of a country.

Posted by: Garem
If anything, this gives us more of a reason to ditch a first-strike policy. Iran can strike us first, and we'll be fine. If Russia stroke first in the Cold War, we would've been screwed.


[Edited on 11.27.2012 2:21 PM PST]

  • 11.27.2012 2:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

This thread surely delivered on the lulz I expected when I clicked it.

  • 11.27.2012 2:22 PM PDT