the definition of irony

[Karmashock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/world/middleeast/22missiles.html?ex=1148961600&en=602449bda2d3840d&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

I'll comment later...

[Karmashock]

The US is going to help europe protect itself from teh missiles it refused to stop it's enemies from building...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148287850178&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

and here is the enemy testing more weapons...

[2biT]

Which you sold to them in the first place..

And as far as i can see in the Op, there are only protecting the US from attacks, as europe will get the nice fallout.

Anyway i thought your deffinition of irony was the complaining russians, and the US stating that they are not pointing at them, they are just a precaution.. honest! kinda reminds me of cuba...

[Karmashock]

Which you sold to them in the first place..
We sold the Iranians russian missile technology?...

Sorry, I'm assuming that's your implication as you seem to be unable to make a complete statement let alone offer even the beginning of a point.

And as far as i can see in the Op, there are only protecting the US from attacks, as europe will get the nice fallout.
False, the US is in no danger from Iranian missiles. Even chinese missiles only threaten a small part of our country and they're far more sophisticated. Iranian missiles will make it to about france... and that's the irony.

Really, the only country I even care about in there is israel at this point... While I would never wish one of these missiles on France, I'm frankly not going to trouble myself about it at this point... and I don't think my country should either... if they want to BUY such technology from us, then they're free to do at our profit so long as they agree not to sell it to anyone else... otherwise, I really really don't care.

Anyway i thought your deffinition of irony was the complaining russians, and the US stating that they are not pointing at them, they are just a precaution.. honest! kinda reminds me of cuba...
Pointing at them? We're not pointing "more" nuclear missiles at russia. we're going to put in missile interceptors. They're clearly defensive missiles. Our offensive missiles are very different. US ICBMs are totally different animals and we have no need to point more at anyone... all the trouble spots can be showered in nuclear death in minutes.

We have missile sites in Turkey for example. Really, the russians lost on all fronts. Where we failed, they failed worse. Where they failed, we usually succeeded.


That is not the point however, the point is merely that all this dickering and hand wringing before cut throats has only lead to those same powers again and again going to the US to get the protection they say they don't need or want until they ask for it without graditude... again and again.


This is why I want the UN to have an enforcement body... so my country and just happily ignore the rest of the planet's bs in the knowledge that "SOMEONE"... really just anyone is taking the issue seriously.

I want Nato disolved, the UN to grow some balls or die and be replaced by something with them, and I want my country in the americas where it belongs. I don't blame these countries for acting like spoiled children... it's what happens when you make things too easy... like giving someone money without teaching them the value of it... they've forgotten the price of peace... that it doesn't just grow on trees but is fought for... all the time. That it must be maintained, not with empty words, but at the very least with words backed up by real force that is used the INSTANT those words are not heeded.


I'm just tired of caring what these idiots think or trying to get them realize what is in their obvious best interest.

[2biT]

We sold the Iranians russian missile technology?...

Sorry, I'm assuming that's your implication as you seem to be unable to make a complete statement let alone offer even the beginning of a point.

Nar just being funny as the US, along with serveral other nations have repeatly sold weapons/technology to the middle east, hell even we have done it!



False, the US is in no danger from Iranian missiles. Even chinese missiles only threaten a small part of our country and they're far more sophisticated. Iranian missiles will make it to about france... and that's the irony.

You missed the point/reason why the US wants the anti-icbm defence in europe, its looking to the future when Iran has icbm's that work. Not currently. Iran is only a danger to its self atm, thats why the rest of the world isnt realy bothered. Not a stance that i agree with btw.


Really, the only country I even care about in there is israel at this point... While I would never wish one of these missiles on France, I'm frankly not going to trouble myself about it at this point... and I don't think my country should either... if they want to BUY such technology from us, then they're free to do at our profit so long as they agree not to sell it to anyone else... otherwise, I really really don't care.

Agree France along with most of euorpe should be left to its own to suffer consiquences.


Pointing at them? We're not pointing "more" nuclear missiles at russia. we're going to put in missile interceptors. They're clearly defensive missiles. Our offensive missiles are very different.

Just going off the article, i think the russians are more worried about the effectivness of your new sites in reducing there icbm effectivness. Along with the US having stronger ties with those eastern countries.


-dam it you got me quoting!

[Karmashock]

Nar just being funny as the US, along with serveral other nations have repeatly sold weapons/technology to the middle east, hell even we have done it!
The middle east is not a country. And our sales PROMOTED stability instead of creating instability.

We gave weapons to Saddam for example to contrain Iran. Not because we liked Saddam. Not because we valued his regime but because Iran had to be kept in check. Saddam did that.

And now that he's gone Iran needs to be kept in check by someone else as Iraq is in no position to do it after Saddam's fall.

As we speak Iran is doing it's best to destablize Iraq to make sure that Iraq never again can counter or check Iran's power.


Why don't you know this?




You missed the point/reason why the US wants the anti-icbm defence in europe, its looking to the future when Iran has icbm's that work. Not currently. Iran is only a danger to its self atm, thats why the rest of the world isnt realy bothered. Not a stance that i agree with btw.
False, we are not threatened by Iran. If you think that's why we're messing with them then you don't understand us.

We are protecting our allies. You will never understand the US's actions if you always assume we're just looking out for ourselves. None of this stuff benifits us. It is for our allies, it is for peace, it is for freedom. Not for just one country.


We think bigger then that. We think in continents. We don't think in 2 years or 10 years, we think in 100 years.

BIG picture. We're trying to tame the middle east so they can play nice with the rest of the world. We need to kill their xenophobia, we need to stop their tyranny, we need to integrate them into the world.

This will take a LONG time. But it can be done so long as we can keep their societies relatively open and unthreatening.

We fight for a dream... for an idea. Not for profit. Not out of fear. We fight out of hope. We fight to protect the foundations of international civilization and against that which would destroy it. That some times includes the UN itself when it's being unusually pigheaded and decides to commite suicide. Then we act to protect the peace and not the UN because the UN is not part of it if is not working to protect it.


We are not out for oil or power. We don't want it.


Ideally we want to be left alone and to leave everyone else alone... but we learned we can't do that unless someone is out there keeping order. That used to be the english until the Germans got to be too much for them.... and after WW2 they asked us to hold the Soviets back. We did our best. We sacrificed tens of thousands of american lives to fight off an enemy that only threatend our shores because we wouldn't let it grow elsewhere. We could have been selfish and let the soviets do what they pleased... let Stalin expand where and when he pleased. We fought him... opposed him... paid in blood and gold... and now that his empire has finally died we find ourselves with a world that is dependent upon our existence. The old alliances are all taht remains of order in this world. Without it there is very little to keep the peace besides MAD... and that's just an accident waiting to happen. Especially if you're going to let religious radicals have it that might very well believe that blowing up the world could give them paradise...


who knows...

My point is that my people want to leave this job but no one will releave us... we get people saying "go home" but that's sort of like asking a firefighter to go home in the middle of a burning building with no one to releave him.

We'd love to get the hell out... we just can't get anyone to take our place. And I'm not taking about Iraq... I'm talking about the whole global police role. Don't tell me we weren't elected or appointed to hte position, because it's not that kind of job. You do it because you must. Because if you don't no one will... We get nothing for our blood but ingraditude from ignorant morons that spent more time im pre school then college by the looks of their sad ass protest posters from the finger paint reject table...

Just going off the article, i think the russians are more worried about the effectivness of your new sites in reducing there icbm effectivness. Along with the US having stronger ties with those eastern countries.
The russians are insinuating that our missile shield makes us more likely to get shot at. Which is just russia again talking bigger then it can act. It's all the more pathetic now that they've lost their empire and yet haven't humbled their tone.

The russians have always done this kind of stuff... they like to talk big... threaten... and then they never have the balls or means to back their mouth up.

The classic example was when kruschev banged the table with his shoe and screamed "WE WILL BURY YOU!"... putz.

-dam it you got me quoting!
really it's the best way to discuss something on a forum. Keeps things clear and focused.

[2biT]

The middle east is not a country. And our sales PROMOTED stability instead of creating instability.


Keep believeing that tosh, it makes you a fine example of an American.


As we speak Iran is doing it's best to destablize Iraq to make sure that Iraq never again can counter or check Iran's power.


Agree, but then again you backed Saddam against Iran so its your own fault they are flexing there muscles.




False, we are not threatened by Iran. If you think that's why we're messing with them then you don't understand us.

We are protecting our allies. You will never understand the US's actions if you always assume we're just looking out for ourselves. None of this stuff benifits us. It is for our allies, it is for peace, it is for freedom. Not for just one country.


Thats pure rhetoric bs.


We think bigger then that. We think in continents. We don't think in 2 years or 10 years, we think in 100 years.

BIG picture.

Yup 100 years down the line when there is a oil shortage, and wow American business now runs the Iraq oil fields.

We're trying to tame the middle east so they can play nice with the rest of the world. We need to kill their xenophobia, we need to stop their tyranny, we need to integrate them into the world.

This will take a LONG time. But it can be done so long as we can keep their societies relatively open and unthreatening.

We fight for a dream... for an idea. Not for profit. Not out of fear. We fight out of hope. We fight to protect the foundations of international civilization and against that which would destroy it.

Noble ideas, and a flaw in yours (and my) soicities that is/was easy to exploit. The war in Iraq was NEVER about a threat to America or even western europe. Or about bringing the middle east to heel. It was about oil. Just admit it. I admit it, my country went to war not over human rights or bringing freedom to Iraq, it was over oil and keeping good trans-alantic relations.

Freedom of Iraq was just a by product.


That some times includes the UN itself when it's being unusually pigheaded and decides to commite suicide. Then we act to protect the peace and not the UN because the UN is not part of it if is not working to protect it.


We are not out for oil or power. We don't want it.


Tosh, have the balls to at least admit it.


Ideally we want to be left alone and to leave everyone else alone... but we learned we can't do that unless someone is out there keeping order. That used to be the english until the Germans got to be too much for them.... and after WW2 they asked us to hold the Soviets back. We did our best. We sacrificed tens of thousands of american lives to fight off an enemy that only threatend our shores because we wouldn't let it grow elsewhere.


We could have been selfish and let the soviets do what they pleased... let Stalin expand where and when he pleased. We fought him... opposed him... paid in blood and gold... and now that his empire has finally died we find ourselves with a world that is dependent upon our existence. The old alliances are all taht remains of order in this world. Without it there is very little to keep the peace besides MAD... and that's just an accident waiting to happen. Especially if you're going to let religious radicals have it that might very well believe that blowing up the world could give them paradise...


who knows...

My point is that my people want to leave this job but no one will releave us... we get people saying "go home" but that's sort of like asking a firefighter to go home in the middle of a burning building with no one to releave him.

We'd love to get the hell out... we just can't get anyone to take our place. And I'm not taking about Iraq... I'm talking about the whole global police role. Don't tell me we weren't elected or appointed to hte position, because it's not that kind of job. You do it because you must. Because if you don't no one will... We get nothing for our blood but ingraditude from ignorant morons that spent more time im pre school then college by the looks of their sad ass protest posters from the finger paint reject table...


I cant even coment on that amount of bs.

[Compeador]

We don't want oil, we want alternative fuels. Fuck foreign oil. The US never ever ever sold weapons to Iran. To Iraq, yea. That was to contain Ayatolla Khumeni, and bc Iraq was the lesser of the two threats at the time. But why even argue about this when we all know Iran should be turned into a glass factory and given to Israel?

[Quietus]

2bit do you even have the slightest idea of what you are talking about? Or do you just camp shoutwire all day?

And what the fuck does "Tosh" mean?

[Karmashock]

Keep believeing that tosh, it makes you a fine example of an American.
Bigotry only makes you sound more pathetic.

You can treat me with respect or disrespect yourself.



Agree, but then again you backed Saddam against Iran so its your own fault they are flexing there muscles.
False, Iran has been "flexing" since the religious council took over and they've deemed it the will of God that they crush the infidels.




Thats pure rhetoric bs.
Ironically, YOU fed ME propoganda and I just told you the truth of it.



Yup 100 years down the line when there is a oil shortage, and wow American business now runs the Iraq oil fields.
100 years from now we won't be using that oil at all. We're going alternative and unlike the euro's we'll make it actually work.


Noble ideas, and a flaw in yours (and my) soicities that is/was easy to exploit. The war in Iraq was NEVER about a threat to America or even western europe. Or about bringing the middle east to heel. It was about oil. Just admit it
No, because that it was for "oil" is a total load of bullshit.

Either you're too stupid to see it or you think we're stupid.

Let me lay this out for you. Saddam would have been happy to GIVE us his oil in exchange for our support of him. He was a clever guy and had no problems making deals with us. WE changed though. We were no longer willing to deal with him because we didn't think Iran's contaiment required him anymore. Furthermore, we owed the Iraqi people a chance at freedom after we told them to rise up against him and we didn't help them.

I admit it, my country went to war not over human rights or bringing freedom to Iraq, it was over oil and keeping good trans-alantic relations.

False. Good relations is part of it, but Blair believes in what we're doing. He's killing his political career to serve a higher cause. It is sad that you can't believe that anyone would do that.

Freedom of Iraq was just a by product.
False, it was the point. We want that whole region to be free. Once they're all free there can be peace and prosperity.



Tosh, have the balls to at least admit it.
I will not say things are false when they are true. Have the courage to consider other perspectives and the curiosity to learn what other people think.



I cant even coment on that amount of bs.
If you refuse to listen or learn then I can only pity you.