Make Iran Make the 1st Move

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by lada
hey thats NK

Probably don't need the sunglasses in NK.

[JB88]

ol' zoraster is still around?  

no kidding?



wasnt he the first to rule the universe singlehandedly?

[Rasker]

Judging from that night satellite photo, looks like North Korea leads the world in energy conservation!

[JB88]

i have often wondered what the earth would look like looking at the dark side against the stars.

it must be amazing.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Raider179
gotta be joking. Your gonna give guns to extremists? Their rights are protected too huh? Sorry but I dont agree. Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind. Now you talking nukes. One guy with a friggin machine gun could kill a couple thousand maybe if they all just stood there for it. 1 guy with a nuke could do what 3 or 4 million in the right place. Relating a firearm to a nuke is pure fantasy. Iran wants them to either keep us at bay or use them to exert dominance in the region. Either way that is a threat to us and World Security and that cannot be allowed to happen.

.
.
.

If I can put it like this maybe you will understand. In america It is illegal to own machine guns. (in most states and without going through appropiate checks and getting licensed) The Police are allowed to use them. I look at Nuclear weapons as the same. The good guys have them to make sure the bad guys dont get out of line.

Raider179 - I just wanted to come back to this, as it is highly logical and will be useful in future gun threads.

Of course I understand what you're saying here, and I agree entirely. I don't like the idea of nutjobs having nukes, and oil producing countries like Iran can meet their energy needs by conventional means, without needing nuclear energy.

As for your example about the US police being allowed machine guns, while John Doe is not, I agree again. But my stance has always been to extend this logic to include all guns - not just machine guns. And that pretty much describes the status quo in most European states.

I see that you agree with me when you said "Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind." Unfortunately, having a ready supply of guns in retail outlets as in the US, there's no way to keep them out of criminal hands. That's why, like most people here, I would never want to see the same thing happen in Britain.  - just for the record.

[lada]

Originally posted by Raider179
1) 4 years old   pre-9/11 letter
2)10 years old
3) a friggin travel agency

 

actualy there are about 500 americans tourists in Iran every year.

Ahh.. i got your point so you want to spread you ideas to people who live under diferent regimes and at the same time you simply ignore&fear those people..

... wtg have a nice fear.


Thats right .. something has change in Iran after 9/11.  Security at the airfield went up, people are scared of terrorist and hostility by goverment is not tolerated by public opinion.

But you can still belive in  propaganda from your media. " average guy from ME is dreaming about Jihad" and not girls....

ohh well.. hard to speak with someone who doesnt have balls to check reality

Sure if you will wear miniscule you will be punished by police and people will be happy that  sutch dumb has been arested.... thats same like walking nude in NYC ....  they have just diferent limits and if you arent able to tolerate diferent cultures, then try to speak about it with your doctor.

However some proper scotish in iran could be proper fun.

[Urchin]

Lada, are you joking?  

I wouldn't be going to ANY muslim country to check out the climate right about now, unless I had an M-16 and body armor strapped on, and was going in with the Army.  

There is "scared" and there is "smart"... it isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to go into a region where people are kidnapped and killed.  

And yes, yes, I know Iran isn't Iraq... but it is close, and I bet that border is pretty porous in some places.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Urchin
Lada, are you joking?  

I wouldn't be going to ANY muslim country to check out the climate right about now, unless I had an M-16 and body armor strapped on, and was going in with the Army.  

There is "scared" and there is "smart"... it isn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to go into a region where people are kidnapped and killed.  

And yes, yes, I know Iran isn't Iraq... but it is close, and I bet that border is pretty porous in some places.

Dont bother urchin he is obviously foolish. He will tell ya you dont have the balls to go there. I told him it aint balls its brains but he doesnt seem to understand. Wonder which one he thinks with.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by beet1e
Raider179 - I just wanted to come back to this, as it is highly logical and will be useful in future gun threads.

Of course I understand what you're saying here, and I agree entirely. I don't like the idea of nutjobs having nukes, and oil producing countries like Iran can meet their energy needs by conventional means, without needing nuclear energy.

As for your example about the US police being allowed machine guns, while John Doe is not, I agree again. But my stance has always been to extend this logic to include all guns - not just machine guns. And that pretty much describes the status quo in most European states.

I see that you agree with me when you said "Only law-abiding, non-fanatical people should be allowed to posses weapons of any kind." Unfortunately, having a ready supply of guns in retail outlets as in the US, there's no way to keep them out of criminal hands. That's why, like most people here, I would never want to see the same thing happen in Britain.  - just for the record.

Yeah only problem here is they are so abundant it would be like the war on drugs. Utterly useless to make them illegal. People would still own them. And like I said no problem for law-abiding folks but I am favor of making those laws against felons and violent criminals possessing weapons stricter. Doubt even that would change anything though. A person who is gonna risk 5-10 carrying a gun probably gonna risk 10-20 or whatever the years are. so I guess we are stuck the way we are.

[Urchin]

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the VAST majority of Muslims are nice, law-abiding people that just want to live and love in peace.  

Unfortunately for me, there are roving groups of them that like to kill white people.  Since I'm white, that means I'm not gonna go visit there any time soon.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah only problem here is they are so abundant it would be like the war on drugs. Utterly useless to make them illegal. People would still own them. And like I said no problem for law-abiding folks but I am favor of making those laws against felons and violent criminals possessing weapons stricter. Doubt even that would change anything though. A person who is gonna risk 5-10 carrying a gun probably gonna risk 10-20 or whatever the years are. so I guess we are stuck the way we are.

Yes, I think that sums it up. Which is why I have never suggested that Americans should give up their guns - though some people think I have! Yes, it would be pointless to ban guns in the US - *they* would have to target ammo sales... but it's funny that guns are legal but drugs are not. If it's pointless to ban guns, then it's also pointless to ban drugs - for the same reasons.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Rasker
Judging from that night satellite photo, looks like North Korea leads the world in energy conservation!

That's partially because US made them stop their nuclear powerplant programm. Policy of starving works

The author on the page I posted says there are great energy saving measures taken.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Urchin
Lada, are you joking?  

I wouldn't be going to ANY muslim country to check out the climate right about now, unless I had an M-16 and body armor strapped on, and was going in with the Army.

I suggest Moslim provinces of Russian Federation. Like Tatarstan or Bashkiria.

[Urchin]

Yea, I'd prolly be much more popular as a headless indie movie film star.

[Raider179]

Ok Condi is throwing down the gaunlet looks like to me. This appears to be an open threat to Iran that they are next.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing."

"And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials.


what doesn next steps are in the offing mean? is that a typo?