Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
No matter how many reams of information and evidence your throw at him he dodges them like a silver bullet and pretends he never read you replies.

Is this your lame attempt at trying to make a point or something because I have answered practically every post directed towards me and have dodged nothing.
The only so called 'evidence' you have shown is some dudes blog. Sorry but I need more than that. I guess you call 'dodging' when someone refutes your 'evidence' and disagrees with your assumptions. Got it.

You expend so much effort and energy trying to convince him and responds with nothing more than insults, ad hominem attacks or "spelling corrections".

What insults are you talking about? Please enlighten us.
You must be mistaken the poster who was on a rant and wrote an entire paragraph of nothing but insults and then mispelled the insult. So of course I am going to point out the mispelling when the poster is purposefully insulting me. Boy, you do see things with your own rose colored glasses on.

He's got nothing and he knows it.
Just let his pointless arguement die the death it sorely deserves. Don't respond.

Originally posted by AreaMan
Have a nice day. Goodbye.

Ok, so what? What's your point?
That story was only talking about a few weapons they were going to show at that time. The article does not say anything about the weapons found in the articles I posted. In that story they actually were able to trace the serial numbers to a Iranian factory. Oh, I guess you will just ignore that.
Ok, goodbye.

How about this? The U.S. has been meddling in the Middle East for so long, they are afraid of the repercussions it will inevitably face when one country gets "equal" billing in terms of weaponry. My opinion is that the elitist structure within our society is becoming frightful because of the potential a country has to fight a "real war", instead of an "occupation". I would consider it "coming home to roost" in terms of the massive blowback that commenced from our interference in the Middle East for many years.

This notion is derived from the actions I see the U.S. government takes in order to justify their militaristic actions, particularly stemming from the falsely perpetrated "rumors" that Iran has WMD's of some sorts. I back my assumption up with the immensely falsified information given by the White House and military that Iraq had WMD's, which led to their illegal invasion. One cannot deny this fact and it's significance in the U.S.'s role in how they are perceived in the world. America's support for this "war on terror" is dwindling, and rightly so...but through blind ignorance (or maybe this is part of the plan), America--or should I say the Elite--are steadfast to continue their erroneous endeavors in the Middle East.

And I still don't understand the benefit we could gain from yet another skirmish in the Middle East, without losing more than we hope to obtain. Our country's currency is falling, we are stretching our troops too thin as it is, and we are increasingly becoming dependent on China for our economic rescuing...I don't see how any skirmish/proxy wars will help out in the long run, we will significantly lose more in order to obtain little.


[edit on 23-5-2008 by douglas2k4]

Originally posted by douglas2k4
How about this? The U.S. has been meddling in the Middle East for so long, they are afraid of the repercussions it will inevitably face when one country gets "equal" billing in terms of weaponry. My opinion is that the elitist structure within our society is becoming frightful because of the potential a country has to fight a "real war", instead of an "occupation". I would consider it "coming home to roost" in terms of the massive blowback that commenced from our interference in the Middle East for many years.

While that is a different take on the issue, I still find it hard to believe for a number of reasons.
First of all, you are assuming all of our 'meddling' has been a bad thing when if fact, some of it has been necessary. At the time during the cold war would you have wanted Russia to add another country to their empire called Afganistan. If we would have not 'meddled' by supplying arms and money to the forces fighting the Russians, the Russians would probably have taken over that country. Who knows Russia's next move after that. Somtimes to maintain one's power, you have to support the lesser of two evils.

That is only one example. There are many more including how the Middle East would look today if we would have never supported Israel. So anyway, I am saying that 'meddling' is not always a bad thing.

Whatever the intentions the U.S. has had in the Middle East in the past, it has increasingly become more obvious that most recently this "meddling" our government is performing is not effectively working out. It's actually becoming substantially worse.

As I said earlier, a skirmish with Iran will cost more money (money we don't have at the moment, thus putting us into more debt under China's thumb), our current roster of soldiers are stretched thin as it is fighting/occupying two battle fronts, and our global support for this "war on terror" is dwindling. The other notion that if we did have proxy/skirmish with Iran, we would lose significantly more (pertaining to some of the reasons listed above) and gain very little. I seem to be experiencing Deja Vu here!

You bring up the Cold War...different situation, different time. I'm proclaiming that the current situation with Iran, if handled irrationally (like Iraq), will hurt the U.S. significantly, you can already see the effects the Iraq occupation is having on our economy, which are just starting to blossom. Again, I'm looking at our current situation, which is enough evidence to convince me to believe we are not prepared diplomatically, financially, and militarily to fight yet another skirmish war, let alone another full blown one.

Originally posted by douglas2k4
Whatever the intentions the U.S. has had in the Middle East in the past, it has increasingly become more obvious that most recently this "meddling" our government is performing is not effectively working out. It's actually becoming substantially worse.

Well, I guess we really will not know until these current events are over in a couple of years and we see how things ended.

Well, I listed some items that are occurring right now, you don't have to wait to see them. What you will see in a couple of years though (if we stay on the assumed course), is the increasingly devastating effects of those items I listed, that goes without question. Domestically, it will be a trainwreck as well.

Some of the reasons listed in the 2-3 paragraphs of my previous post lay out these foundations.

Originally posted by douglas2k4
I'm proclaiming that the current situation with Iran, if handled irrationally (like Iraq), will hurt the U.S. significantly, you can already see the effects the Iraq occupation is having on our economy, which are just starting to blossom.

I disagree with your premise that Iraq is the reason our economy is currently struggling. The housing crash is the main reason why our economy started to tank and this was caused by greedy lenders, lending people money that they knew they could not afford. We are still not in a recession and unemployment is still relatively low so things could be a lot worse.

If we do attack Iran, it will not be a invasion so we will not have the problem we are currently having in Iraq. If we strike Iran, it will be attacks on their nuclear facilities and military targets only.

It's foolish to not believe the Iraq war (don't forget Afghanistan) has significantly impacted our economy. While the devaluation of the dollar is mostly due to us living well beyond our means and running a deficit, the Iraq War has exacerbated our deficit by extensive increase in military spending. This deficit is paid for by loans from foreign countries (China for example) and by the Federal Reserve simply printing more money, both of which devalue the dollar. If you don't understand the economical structure of the dollar and it's impact when devalued, I suggest reading up on micro & macro economics.

I think I already made my points (which haven't been addressed yet) regarding aspects that would out weigh the very notion that attacking Iran would be beneficial to us. I won't repeat them. I will provide a summary...the U.S. does not have the money, military, or resources to attack Iran without losing more than gaining. I haven't (and won't) get into the various forms in which the U.S. government has lied to the American people regarding these conflicts, that should be elementary learning.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by douglas2k4]

Originally posted by douglas2k4
the U.S. does not have the money, military, or resources to attack Iran without losing more than gaining
I haven't (and won't) get into the various forms in which the U.S. government has lied to the American people regarding these conflicts, that should be elementary learning.

You are entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong and misguided IMO.

I'm assuming you're speaking of yourself? I've backed up my assumptions with clear (and logical) facts. You seem to not want to address a majority of what is contained in my posts, which is fine (and expected). You selectively chose portions of my previous posts to address, leaving out the most critical information that should be acknowledged.

Why not respond to the devaluation issue? It's very important pertaining to the issues you raised. I don't need to say anymore, just look at my previous posts.