Europe doesn't cower? Europe is unable to (even combined) handle any war.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Ron, sounds almost like you're advocating gunboat diplomacy...is this another policy Ron has flipped on? He was against "showing the horse the whip" before he was for it?



What makes you think I read Drudge? At any rate, yes, the demographics are handing Europe to the Islamists. Hope you enjoyed your vacation - I bet your kids (oops - another demographic issue) won't.



Iran, as I understand it, is the subject of this thread. If I am incorrect, please advise. If you're just being you, nevermind.

whoa whoa whoa, j! when you first said gunboat diplomacy, you made it seem like we had to ramp things up.


hmm, if you say it, it must be true! when i was there, it seemed to be turning into a caliphate :rolls eyes:


is this non sequitur? my point was making iran galvanizaed against the west makes them want to pursue nuclear weapons; if we work with them, perhaps pragmatism can take over. what the heck was your point other than the obvious "i thought this thread was about iran"?

*yawn*

shemp, the big kids are playing here. "france is a bunch of surrender monkeys" doesn't add much.

Ron, I provided a definition of gunboat diplomacy. You apparently chose to ignore it. Another non-surprise.

When you were in Europe, did you visit the Muslim ghetto? Oh, you didn't? Who's surprised by this one?

Listen, Ron, try to keep up - Ted pointed out that NATO bravely sent a few thousand troops to Afghanistan. I asked what that had to do with Iran getting the bomb. You made some unintelligible response, so I restated my question. As I thought, you were just being you, so, as I said, nevermind.

no j, when you said it, you intimated that we needs to turn the screws som MORE. at the time, i figured out what that term meant in context and i thought, "aren't we doing that already? i mean, we did invade their neighbor under false pretense. it should be pretty clear what we would do to them."


and? what does national review, kristol and krauthammer tell you is going on?

YOU try to keep up!

i don't remember addressing yossarian.

Have a nice day, Ron.

did you visit the branch davidians?

Can't answer that question yet. While the 15 were freed, upcoming events may change the answer.

Just like a sports trade or a chess game. One move doesn't mean much.

The response, certainly by Europe, will only further embolden Iran, in my opinion.

ok, i'll mark you down for "let's take no chances. prepare to invade."

disregard the articles i've posted.

what response by europe will further embolded iran?

The fact that European citizens were captured by the Iranians and all the EU could do is condemn the actions in the highest possible terms.

When Britain proposed suspending EU trade with Iran if hostages were not released, the EU rejected the notion.

The lack of any European fortitude will embolden Iran to further challenges. They know they can take any action without facing any consequences.

I have read the articles Ron. I simply disagree. Is that ok?

why don't you mention that maybe they saw through the iranian bravado and it worked out? couldn't that possibly be a reason why? the articles usggest that this type of policy could work and it did. not saying there is a direct correlation but i'm definitely not saying there isn't.


that's fine. when should we invade? i gave an example of how things actually worked out by working diplomatically. you give us fear and "we can't take the chance".

Things worked diplomatically? The Iranians caused the crisis, violate Iraqi territory, breach international law, including the Geneva Convention, then release the prisoners and we should cheer this result.

Since the Europeans are so good at seeing thhrough the "bravado", I would think you would be equally as adept as seeing through the reasoning behind the action to begin with.

Ron, in the midst of all of this diplomacy, 1-2 U.S. Aircraft carriers, and possibly other ships of war, were pulled in to the Persian gulf to patrol and watch the Iranian Red Guard very closely(is that what they are called). Do you not think that gave our Persian friends (tongue in cheek) pause for reflection? {Oh, is that not gunboat diplomacy}?

i am cheering the dynamic that plausibly led to such a result. you don't want to accept that internal forces could've said "mahmoud, i don't know if it was such a good idea to hijack those brits and get called on it".

so when do we invade? the analysis in the articles and the related results are simply anecdotal. we just can't take a chance there was no correlation.

i'll sign you up on the "too anecdotal to be true" side of the fence.

who cares about the logic of galvanizing a nation because there are threatened with war? it was gunboats that did it.

Ron, you obviously honestly believe Iran is no threat.

What terms do you think Iran would accept to not go nuclear?

Or, is it ok for Iran to go nuclear and we are worked up over nothing?

i honestly DO believe iran is a threat. but i also don't think they are all maniacs.

you read the articles you claim so why can the short one by isaacson be a solution to the nuclear situation? what makes you think i think it is okay to have nuke weapons? if they really just want nuclear power, why can't they have it if we can monitor it?

If they simply want it for peaceful uses, then what was the purpose in the large build-up in its military as provided for by Russia and Red China over the last 15 years? I guess they built their military up for peaceful purposes too. And I guess Achmadinejad was just making a funny when he stataed that Iran wants to annihilate the nation of Israel and blow it off the map?

Haven't they violated the agreements regarding uranium enrichment? If they wanted only nuclear enegery, they would not need to enrich uranium.

Also, an offer was made several years ago that Iran could have a power plant, with uranium supplied by Russia. Iran rejected that. Why?

so we should invade? i'll just assume you look at situations in the most superficial way.

(do those articles suggest that this internal split among pragmatists and hardliners has been happening for years or does it seem to indicate that it has been happening because of how one hardliner has been leading a country?)

I have been hearing about the split since the Revolution. But good job avoiding the questions I asked.

I guess you just don't have any answers.

when do we invade? way to avoid that question.

does a split suggest a re-revolution or did i suggest it to say that they won't cut off their nose to spite their face?

my point is centered on keeping iran from getting nukes and i believe that it won't take a war to do so. your move.

Since you believe, what terms will the Mullahs accept? Last I checked, Europe has made several attempts to compromise, which have all been rejected by Iran out of hand.

Simple question. What terms will the Mullahs accept?

Great, now you two move to another thread... Oy vay!