Quake3World

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051113/ts_ ... ran_usa_dc

in the spirit of veterens day, i wanna thank all the guys who invade iran to defend our freedom or whatever...thx!

On second thought...in honor of veteran's day...fuck off.
thats better.

No way (to the topic title)...I'm figuring the escalation of nuclear arms (regardless of the pace) will be the road to the next big international conflict. The cold war was a stalemate which ultimately ended because the soviet union's socioeconomic infrastructure was collapsing. There's no way the US will invade a country that's got nukes and can do something more than hold a few of its citizens hostage. Once large populations are at risk (IE the korean situation), the US will just sit on its ass or look elsewhere for some small guy to pick on as a hopeful deterrant to the guys with the nukes. The spread of nukes all over the place makes it not only a lot more probable, but spreads them to areas where folks will actually use them. Ironically, I think the folks that will use them (first) are those who're either used to, or gullible to scare tactics (US anyone?). If we invade another country that has nukes, they WILL be used. Its that simple.

I'd be a lot more concerned about the pending Syrian "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. It WILL happen, mark my words.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming "Syriana" movie. Looks like it will cover many of the mindsets around such politics.

I'm more interested in Lebanon... Had the US not 'cleared' Syria of Hariri's assassination, who knows what might have happened. It would be WWI all over again... The Black Hand ops trained by Serbia [Syria] to assassinate the Archduke [Hariri]. We'd better lay the smack down on Serbia in order to teach them a lesson.

If Bush was really itching for a fight, that would have been the perfect Tonkin.

I'm more concerned with the amount of dirty dishes in the sink. These things don't wash themselves.

Dave wrote:I'm more interested in Lebanon... Had the US not 'cleared' Syria of Hariri's assassination, who knows what might have happened. It would be WWI all over again... The Black Hand ops trained by Serbia [Syria] to assassinate the Archduke [Hariri]. We'd better lay the smack down on Serbia in order to teach them a lesson.

If Bush was really itching for a fight, that would have been the perfect Tonkin.

The Hariri assasination wasn't the Syrians i think. They had absolutely nothing to win, and everything to lose.

who is this hariri guy again?

christ this is worse than Lost

Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman for an Iranian opposition group which first disclosed Tehran's secret activities in 2002 and has since revealed other details of the nuclear program, said his group was not the source of the stolen laptop.

uh-oh. sounds like chalabi all over again

But Gobadi said ... from Paris ... Iran has "mastered the technology to produce (nuclear-capable) cruise missiles and is making great progress toward this end,"

he sees all of this from paris?

Ryoki wrote:

Dave wrote:I'm more interested in Lebanon... Had the US not 'cleared' Syria of Hariri's assassination, who knows what might have happened. It would be WWI all over again... The Black Hand ops trained by Serbia [Syria] to assassinate the Archduke [Hariri]. We'd better lay the smack down on Serbia in order to teach them a lesson.

If Bush was really itching for a fight, that would have been the perfect Tonkin.

The Hariri assasination wasn't the Syrians i think. They had absolutely nothing to win, and everything to lose.

that's what I said...

Nightshade wrote:I'd be a lot more concerned about the pending Syrian "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. It WILL happen, mark my words.

i think so but it will involve iran...we will then invade syria too...

SplishSplash wrote:who is this hariri guy again?

christ this is worse than Lost

In the Lebanese sectarian government, the Maronite Christians hold the presidency, a Muslim (Sunni, I think) is the prime minister and a third group gets to be speaker of the house. Hariri was the prime minister.

Why aren't we invaded for having "weapons of mass destruction?" We probably have 10x as much as any other country. :icon22:

Psyche911 wrote:Why aren't we invaded for having "weapons of mass destruction?" We probably have 10x as much as any other country. :icon22:

because we'll use them

yup..we r the only country to use chemical weapons in the 21st century...and that abomb thing on those jap bastards...

Dave wrote:

Psyche911 wrote:Why aren't we invaded for having "weapons of mass destruction?" We probably have 10x as much as any other country. :icon22:

because we'll use them

and we're scared and powerful and righteous.