Soxbadger

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:55 PM) Actually, the first thing about Iran that was brought up was by you. It wasn't discussed until you brought it up, without noting any statement from Iran or anything, and that's the first time you added a link. I think confusion is warranted about why you'd randomly say, while discussing Syria, that "even liberals would be ok with decimating Iran", without adding the qualifier of "Iran carrying out this threat". You must have missed the first part of the thread where people were saying that if the US got involved they would leave the US. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) This was likely at the US's behest. Israel gives us a very good base of operation and also cover for when we want bad things done to Iran. The US will never stay out of the Middle East as long as there is an extremely important resource there. And even then, I really dont like the idea of "isolationism". The last time the US went down the path of "staying out of other people's problems" we ended up still having to get involved. The response was about "The US being pushed into war". The only way the US is being pushed into war, is if Iran actively engages Israel. I thought the assumption was the only way the US would be in a "war" was if Iran actually attacked Israel. If that wasnt the case, my bad, but I thought since Jake's post, people were inferring war with Iran/Israel.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) Escalate does not equal attack. Iran isn't stupid. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an actual military strike against Israel ends their regime. And hell, they flat out might not have any capacity to hit Israel if Israel's missile defense system is all its cracked up to be. Well if Iran isnt going to do anything, then I see no reason why Israel would do anything. Im pretty sure the US and Israel are happy with the status quo where they are able to do whatever they want. But the entire premise was based on Iran threatening to get involved over Isarel striking Syria. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-575668...ver-air-strike/ Strangesox, If you didnt get the joke with me posting those articles, its that 99% of the time its Republicans attacking Obama for being "anti-israel" so I thought it would be fun to use them

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) For every "oh s***,why war?" American there is probably an Iranian saying the same thing. Iran's government is bad news. The citizens are probably just trying to get by like Americans. It is unfortunate, but we are judged by those who we elect to lead. Im sure that were a lot of innocent (insert Native Americans, Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Korean) but the rest of the world cant sit idly by, just because the innocents of the country are letting the villains do what they want. You have to take responsibility for your lot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:25 PM) At what point did "Iran attacking Israel" become a part of this discussion? Particularly since most of the discussion, including this strike, involves Israel making the first move. If Iran were to actually strike an Israeli city, then yes of course, go ahead and decimate them, just remember that it'll cost us another $5 trillion to rebuild the country. The entire premise of the argument is that Iran is going to do things to continue to escalate. I guess we could also talk about a different hypothetical where Israel attacks Iran unprovoked and without the US telling them to. But I was sticking with the, US is fully aware of Israel's operations and is giving them the okay. Thus if Iran does anything in response, the US would likely get involved. As for the money aspect, money isnt everything. And regardless of the costs of WWII, it was the right thing to do to get involved. Even if most of Europe never repaid us. You cant put a price on doing the right thing. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) yo, Iran is full of people I've got no beef with You would fit right in with 1930's isolationists. According to Y2hh, most people in Germany werent Nazi's so we shouldnt have gotten involved, because we didnt want to hurt the innocent Germans. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) Well, you said "liberals" originally, not "majority of the people." I said "even liberals". I never said the majority, I never put a figure on it. I just said "even liberals" meaning that there would "even be some liberals" who would support it. Why? A majority of Jews vote democrat. They are almost always going to be okay with protecting Israel against Iran.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) Obama aside, I certainly don't think the US needs to battle for Israel. They can defeat Iran on their own. It would be like if a friend of mine got into a fight with a obviously weaker opponent. I wouldn't jump in and go for the total beat down. I would either let things play out or convince them that what they are doing is stupid. Im not 100% sure that Israel can take Iran, etc on their own. The reason is that if it is just Israel v Iran, its likely that other middle east countries will swarm. With US backing some of those countries may stay on the sidelines or just try and get involved via terrorism. The problem is that there is really no situation that will occur where its just Israel v Iran, the US is going to be targeted regardless.

Isolationism has worked so well in the past. Its never resulted in the US having to expend more money and man power than if the US had just gotten involved to start. Oh irony, now it is the "liberals" who are the isolationists and it is the "conservatives" who are not. I just dont understand how anyone who claims to be a liberal, can also want isolationism. Those are mutually exclusive. If you truly care about the plight of people, then you would want someone to interfere on behalf of the weak. Regardless of the cost to yourself. This is like welfare or universal health care, which are generally considered a liberal policies.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) no Thats because you're an Obama fan and anti-Israel. http://blogs.jpost.com/content/obama-most-...ent-history-usa http://freebeacon.com/iran-state-tv-praise...agel-selection/ http://aclj.org/israel/stop-president-obam...rael-nomination http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4287299,00.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) hard to compare the general attitudes in 1990-1991 to 2013 what with us still winding down the two longest wars in our history right next door to Iran. edit: you're still going to have majority support but there's a sizable number of people that don't want war with Iran: http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm lol You have over 50% support to attack Iran just over building nuclear weapons. Imagine if the question was: "Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran has attacked Israel?" Im guessing you are somewhere at 70-80% which is almost unimaginably high. (edit) To conclude, the numbers already support my position that the majority are fine attacking Iran, let alone if Iran does something aggressive.

They summoned him on charges that had already been dropped. It was over a bench warrant for failing to appear. On a case that had already been dismissed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 03:44 PM) Hell, my "stay the Hell out of another clusterf***" in Libya position is looking more accurate by the day. Libya is a far more tricky issue than Iran attacking Israel and the US getting involved. That is a no brainer and I cant believe that people actually think it will be divisive. The US wont make the first move, its just going to keep pressing Iran until it does something.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) Do you have money to go to war with Iran? Or are you hoping the US drops MOAB and ends it in one shot? I don't know you and if you have served or not but it seems that people who are biggest cheerleaders for war are the ones that are sitting behind their keyboards. As for your what's popular what's not popular; If you haven't seen the sheer divisiveness stirring up in the US over the past few years than I don't know what to say. People are ready to find a reason to do something stupid and revolt. I believe another war could be the straw that broke the camel's back. IMHO. I just dont see this as a divisive issue. Iran has made enemies with everyone. They will step over the line and I expect the US will respond. Iran wants a war, they are going to get one soon enough. There is nothing the US can do. Just like when the Japanese attacked the US, they went over a line that there is no going back from. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) yeah I'm not down with that, I wouldn't imagine that much of the liberal/left would be either. Intervention in cases like Libya, Mali or Syria are somewhat complex and you'll find a wide range of views on the left over the merits, but that's a bit different from direct war with Iran. So you think that liberals are going to be against intervention in Iran when Iran starts attacking Israel? Check the war with Iraq in 1990. It was hugely supported and that was about protecting "Kuwait". No one is going to bat an eye over Iran once they target Israel. Maybe the most anti-war, but that will be such a small minority.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) Really? Most of the liberals I know dont care about Iran. Only so much sabre rattling before even the biggest pacifist will say enough is enough. I was against the Iraq war from day 1. Iran, theyve earned what is coming.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) I rather not play this hypothetical game. People are tired of this damn politicians making decisions that are vastly unpopular with the majority of people. I have a feeling if we are somehow pushed into another war that the people in this country will lose their cool. Japan might be dependent on the US but the reality of the matter is it'll be away from the ticking time bomb that is the American people. Vastly unpopular with who? In the last election Obama was being attacked for not being supportive of Israel enough. That Obama is the least friendly President to the state of Israel. Even liberals wont really mind decimating Iran. Iran's nonsense propaganda against Jews, Israel and the US has basically given us a green light to do anything we want to Tehran. I dont really care what is vastly popular or not popular. It was vastly unpopular to get involved in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. It was vastly popular to attack Iraq. Popularity doesnt make it right or wrong. Politicians should be making decisions that are for the good of the whole. If they believe that attacking a convoy in Syria will prevent deaths of innocents, they are well within their rights to make that decision. I could care less what is popular with America. Slavery was popular, so what. The reality is that the US Empire has governed over the most peaceful time period in the history of the world. Hate Americans or love Americans, its a fabrication of history to suggest that the US is any sort of "ticking time bomb."

So you are going to move to a country that is entirely dependent on the support of the US, because the US is supporting another country that is entirely dependent on the support of the US? What are you going to do when the US starts interfering in Asia to protect SK, Taiwan and Japan from China?

Im not doubting it happened. It just seems pretty bizarre. Since the guy was just here for a hearing, Id assume that they did not send regular clothes with him. If youve ever been arrested they take your clothes. When you are being released they give you back your stuff. I just cant imagine that they transferred his clothes, items from Indiana. So when they had nothing, its just odd they didnt figure out something was wrong.

Its an odd story, a lot doesnt make sense. I cant figure out how they released him as I assume he only had his prisoner jump suit.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) But yes, the US should stay out of this middle east stuff. This was likely at the US's behest. Israel gives us a very good base of operation and also cover for when we want bad things done to Iran. The US will never stay out of the Middle East as long as there is an extremely important resource there. And even then, I really dont like the idea of "isolationism". The last time the US went down the path of "staying out of other people's problems" we ended up still having to get involved.

I netflixed 30 rock so Ive only been involved with it for 1 year. Its hard to tell if there is a huge drop off when your are knocking them out that quickly.

My biggest complaint was the unnecessarily long sex scene in the car. We all know that Keri Russel isnt getting naked on FX, Id rather just cut to a commercial than watch some clothes on clothes grinding.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 31, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) "Allegedly attacked" and "flown over an area" seem like radically different things, no? There are a lot of conflicting reports. Israel is saying nothing. Rebels are saying that they (the Rebels) attacked the compound with rockets. I believe they are also confirming that Israel attacked something. Iran/Syria is saying that Israel destroyed the compound with attacks.

If you werent aware GEICO stands for Government Employee Insurance Company and was started to give insurance to govt employees.

Israel allegedly attacked Syria today. UN hilariously cant determine if it happened due to "bad weather". http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/un-...anes-over-golan

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) 1980 was still the disco era. Yeah thats what I was thinking. It seems that they are using more late 80s stereotypes. The jumper tucked into the pants, etc.

Voted, sent out a link, good luck hopefully Soxtalk can will you to victory.

I wish someone said that was an article by Skip Bayless so i wouldnt have wasted the 1 second clicking on the link. Why have anything in any sport?