Iran, are you prepared for war?

[Snuff 10]

OMG are you this stupid. You said we'd not win a nuke war with Iran NOT "nuking Iran will have harmful effect for the US"

 

See the difference?

 

I sure did say that, in my 2nd post to you. Again, yeah, we'd wipe them off the map, but as far as winning it? Maybe we don't define "winning a war" the same way.

[TD Ryan2 316]

OMG are you this stupid. You said we'd not win a nuke war with Iran NOT "nuking Iran will have harmful effect for the US"

 

See the difference?

 

well, here we go again.

Until one of you's defines "win", neither of you will be right.

 

for example: some claim that we have already "won" the war in Iraq. Have we? I really don't know. WTF does "win" mean? What are the focking criteria for marking an "X" in the win column?

[Snuff 10]

Main Entry: 1an·oth·er

Pronunciation: &-'n&-[th]&r also a- or A-

Function: adjective

1 : different or distinct from the one first considered

2 : some other <do it another time>

3 : being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind <have another piece of pie>

 

I did.

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/another

 

You really wanna pull the gloves off because I ranted on you? Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but really...let's be honest here; the context you placed on your post concurs with my viewpoint.

 

Why didn't you bold the second one? That is the context of how I said it.

[schaef2k 0]

 

well, here we go again.

Until one of you's defines "win", neither of you will be right.

 

for example: some claim that we have already "won" the war in Iraq. Have we? I really don't know. WTF does "win" mean? What are the focking criteria for marking an "X" in the win column?

 

In a nuclear war the side that isn't glass won. HTH

[TD Ryan2 316]

In a nuclear war the side that isn't glass won. HTH

 

 

translation: Snuff is winning this thread.

[Guest Black Label Society]

Why didn't you bold the second one? That is the context of how I said it.

 

2nd one = some other <do it another time>

 

Some OTHER would indicate that we nuked a different country. Good god man.

 

Let me essssplain it to ya in YOUR terms.

 

Here's your EXACT original post

 

"I guess I just don't see how nuking another country into oblivion would be good for us."

 

Now, let's replace the word 'another' with the words 'some other'.

 

I guess I just don't see how nuking another some other country into oblivion would be good for us.

 

Now, how in the world does that statement NOT suggest the same exact thing? That it's SOME OTHER country. Other than who? someone other than who? The US? Do you see what I mean????

 

I'm done....I clearly didn't get what you were trying to imply, and from other posts, it appears I'm not the only one. But whatever....no big deal. I said I was sorry if I missed your point. Let's move forward.

 

And for the record....I totally agree that nobody 'wins' a nuclear war. It's all bad IMO.

[TD Ryan2 316]

And for the record....I totally agree that nobody 'wins' a nuclear war. It's all bad IMO.

 

 

thank God for this one shred of logic in this train-wreck of a thread.

[Snuff 10]

2nd one = some other <do it another time>

 

Some OTHER would indicate that we nuked a different country. Good god man.

 

Let me essssplain it to ya in YOUR terms.

 

Here's your EXACT original post

 

"I guess I just don't see how nuking another country into oblivion would be good for us."

 

Now, let's replace the word 'another' with the words 'some other'.

 

I guess I just don't see how nuking another some other country into oblivion would be good for us.

 

Now, how in the world does that statement NOT suggest the same exact thing? That it's SOME OTHER country. Other than who? someone other than who? The US? Do you see what I mean????

 

I'm done....I clearly didn't get what you were trying to imply, and from other posts, it appears I'm not the only one. But whatever....no big deal. I said I was sorry if I missed your point. Let's move forward.

 

And for the record....I totally agree that nobody 'wins' a nuclear war. It's all bad IMO.

 

As the reader, it is up to you to decide what focking context the word is in that the writer uses. The word I used is fine, and it works. Not my fault you have the education level of a 2nd grader. Class focking dismissed.

[schaef2k 0]

translation: Snuff is winning this thread.

 

LOL, if you call asking question, back tracking on that question and then trying to make a totally different point winning, I guess so.

 

You are saying you are just as stupid? Sure looks that way. Maybe I should order you two some hooked on phonics or something.

[Snuff 10]

LOL, if you call asking question, back tracking on that question and then trying to make a totally different point winning, I guess so.

 

You are saying you are just as stupid? Sure looks that way. Maybe I should order you two some hooked on phonics or something.

 

If you have no thoughts on what would happen other than "In a nuclear war the side that isn't glass won.", then you apparently do not think about consequences, thus we must define "winning" differently.

[TD Ryan2 316]

LOL, if you call asking question, back tracking on that question and then trying to make a totally different point winning, I guess so.

 

You are saying you are just as stupid? Sure looks that way. Maybe I should order you two some hooked on phonics or something.

 

holy fukking ransom notes...

 

I am beginning to understand why massive amounts of radiation aren't a concern for you.

 

[Guest Black Label Society]

As the reader, it is up to you to decide what focking context the word is in that the writer uses. The word I used is fine, and it works. Not my fault you have the education level of a 2nd grader. Class focking dismissed.

 

 

Quite possibly the dumbest, most idiotic statement ever written.

 

As the reader, it's my job to determine what you're TRYING TO IMPLY??

 

As opposed to using the correct syntax??

 

My god man....just give up already. Jebus.

[p.man 7]

I say we Nuke em just to see what the fall out brings.

[schaef2k 0]

If you have no thoughts on what would happen other than "In a nuclear war the side that isn't glass won.", then you apparently do not think about consequences, thus we must define "winning" differently.

 

See here is the problem. The question was "Who would win in a nuclear war?" not "what are the ramifications of the US nuking Iran?". See, they're not the same question.

 

I clearly see that you want to discuss the later but you are not smart enough to ask the proper question.

 

Does this help?

 

If Iran nuked Israel first there is not a whole lot that anyone can say against the justification to retaliate. Nobody would do anything though. The UN would have some long debates and they would issue some resolution that does nothing.

 

China and Russia will go along with anything that puts money in their pocket so cut them in on the deal to redevelope Iran's oil fields and they be right beside us.

[Strike 6,019]

what no declaration of war?

 

We don't do that no more.

[Snuff 10]

Quite possibly the dumbest, most idiotic statement ever written.

 

As the reader, it's my job to determine what you're TRYING TO IMPLY??

 

As opposed to using the correct syntax??

 

My god man....just give up already. Jebus.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. When 1 word can mean 2 or more different things, it's up to the reader to decide what it means. Ain't rocket science. Everyone else seems to get it....even wiffleball. Stick with the books that have a bunch of pictures.

[schaef2k 0]

holy fukking ransom notes...

 

I am beginning to understand why massive amounts of radiation aren't a concern for you.

 

 

Man you are a stupid SOB. Beyond help.

[Guest Black Label Society]

We don't do that no more.

 

Exactly. when you call the Orkin man, you don't put up a little bitsy sign for the roaches that says "you'll need to leave on Wednesday at 5am, because the Orkin man is coming".

[Snuff 10]

See here is the problem. The question was "Who would win in a nuclear war?" not "what are the ramifications of the US nuking Iran?". See, they're not the same question.

 

 

Semantics.......

 

[wiffleball 4,797]

Everyone else seems to get it....even wiffleball.

 

 

Hey!

[Guest Black Label Society]

Yeah, that's exactly what I am saying. When 1 word can mean 2 or more different things, it's up to the reader to decide what it means. Ain't rocket science. Everyone else seems to get it....even wiffleball. Stick with the books that have a bunch of pictures.

 

 

CHRIST...for the last time. I get it. It's supposed to mean if you have 2 options, it's the one I meant, not the one that everybody took from it.

 

I'm done...I can't take it anymore.

 

Seriously...don't bother replying because you've strung me along for far too long now.

[TD Ryan2 316]

See here is the problem. The question was "Who would win in a nuclear war?" not "what are the ramifications of the US nuking Iran?". See, they're not the same question.

 

I clearly see that you want to discuss the later but you are not smart enough to ask the proper question.

 

 

when dumb people try to be smart on teh internets!

 

[Strike 6,019]

Exactly. when you call the Orkin man, you don't put up a little bitsy sign for the roaches that says "you'll need to leave on Wednesday at 5am, because the Orkin man is coming".

 

Are you calling Iranians roaches? That could be construed as an act of war!!!

[Snuff 10]

Hey!

 

 

 

 

I'm done...I can't take it anymore. I'm gonna take my ball and go home, and read a "Where's Waldo" book.

 

Seriously...don't bother replying because you've strung me along for far too long now.

 

Fixed....and replied to.

[schaef2k 0]

Semantics.......

 

 

 

Not really.

 

when dumb people try to be smart on teh internets!

 

 

OMG! a TYPO!!!!

 

At least I'm not a borderline retarded internet cheerleader.

[Snuff 10]

schaef2k, basically what Manola said earlier : "When I read the comments, I got the impression he meant nobody would win a nuke war...everybody would lose."

 

Thus when I said "we wouldn't win either"....is pretty much all I am saying, and would have figured you would have figured that out based on the way the thread was going. You obviously did not.

Of course we would "win" the initial phase as we have nukes to use...many of them. No one would dispute that. But I also factored in the consequences of said nuke war, and most importantly the consequences on the US. There would be no "winner" IMO.

[TD Ryan2 316]

OMG! a TYPO!!!!

 

liar liar liar.

 

you did not know the difference between "later" and "latter".

 

it is a tip that don't fock up your grammar or spelling when you are calling someone else dumb on the internets.

 

rookie.

[Guest Black Label Society]

Are you calling Iranians roaches? That could be construed as an act of war!!!

 

 

It's your JOB as the reader to determine what I'm trying to say...not ask me for clarification. Duh.

 

 

 

 

 

clearlythereisinuendothere

[schaef2k 0]

liar liar liar.

 

you did not know the difference between "later" and "latter".

 

it is a tip that don't fock up your grammar or spelling when you are calling someone else dumb on the internets.

 

rookie.

 

OMG you are this stupid. I'm gona find your missing chromosome for you so I don't have to listen to you regurgitate crap all day.

[Snuff 10]

It's your JOB as the reader to determine what I'm trying to say...not ask me for clarification. Duh.

 

 

He's a little brighter than you, of course he knows that you imbecile.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

Sometimes, after rubbing one out, I close my eyes and think of Capitan Kangaroo.

[schaef2k 0]

schaef2k, basically what Manola said earlier : "When I read the comments, I got the impression he meant nobody would win a nuke war...everybody would lose."

 

Thus when I said "we wouldn't win either"....is pretty much all I am saying, and would have figured you would have figured that out based on the way the thread was going. You obviously did not.

Of course we would "win" the initial phase as we have nukes to use...many of them. No one would dispute that. But I also factored in the consequences of said nuke war, and most importantly the consequences on the US. There would be no "winner" IMO.

 

I understand what you're getting at but you need to be clear. The fact that you're saying "I got the impression" and "pretty much all I am saying" is an admittance that you were vague.

 

I actually agree with you that the consequences of anyone nuking anyone are in no ones best interests.

 

So lets call it a day, I'm gona grab a beer.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

Sometimes, after rubbing one out, I close my eyes and think of Capitan Kangaroo.

I call BS!

 

I bet you really think of Mr. Greenjeans you sick bastard.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

I call BS!

 

I bet you really think of Mr. Greenjeans you sick bastard.

[Snuff 10]

I understand what you're getting at but you need to be clear. The fact that you're saying "I got the impression" and "pretty much all I am saying" is an admittance that you were vague.

 

I actually agree with you that the consequences of anyone nuking anyone are in no ones best interests.

 

So lets call it a day, I'm gona grab a beer.

 

Didn't think I was vague. I said we wouldn't win it "either". If I meant we wouldn't win it no matter what, I would have simply stated why we wouldn't win.

But whatever.....enjoy your beer.

[p.man 7]

I actually agree with you that the consequences of anyone nuking anyone are in no ones best interests.

 

I'm gonna grab a beer.

 

I don't know, I think that if it did happen it just might be in the best interest of the USA.

Why?

Well, maybe it would make some of these countries think twice before attacking the US or anyone else.

It would be in their best interest not to fock with us.

 

There will be a war. Why? Because G.Bush will not end his term without dealing with Iran in a military way.

 

I think I'll grab myself a beer too. Cheers!

[jets24 6]

heres to iran firing a nuke into Isreal

 

cant wait for us to lose another war

 

 

Link to us losing a war?

 

P.S. You're a focking doooosh

 

Sorry..I had to jump in here.

 

ANOTHER Country? Oblivion?

 

When was the last time we nuked a country into oblivion?

 

Japan?? AYFS? (are you f'ing serious)

 

From the people who brought you Pearl Harbor comes the following (out of oblivion, BTW):

 

Every TV in your home for the last 15 years

Every Honda, Toyota, Kia, etc. Car and Truck

A huge portion of all Motorcycles, ATV's, snowmobiles, etc.

90% of computer equipment/electronics

Nintendos, Playstations

Do I need to continue??

 

What happened in WWII, they HAD coming. We didn't pick the fight. They did.

We stood up, dusted ourselves off, kicked their asses down to the ground, and then decided to spit in their face. Not once, but twice.

 

Since then we have not used them on an enemy. Oblivion.....

 

 

[Snuff 10]

I don't know, I think that if it did happen it just might be in the best interest of the USA.

Why?

Well, maybe it would make some of these countries think twice before attacking the US or anyone else.

It would be in their best interest not to fock with us.

 

There will be a war. Why? Because G.Bush will not end his term without dealing with Iran in a military way.

 

I think I'll grab myself a beer too. Cheers!

 

We don't have the resources for an all out war at the present time. But I am with you, I think something will happen, primarily bombing. Not only us doing the bombing either. Israel and the Brits will also do it.

As far as a nuke war, the ramifications are obsene. Do we not harp on them (terrorists) causing mass destruction on civilians, and now we want to nuke a country based on their leaders actions? Kind of hypocritical of us to think that way. Not to mention the impact on global markets, the atmosphere, the way other countries would feel about us (I am thinking Russia and China mostly here), making even more enemies across Islam, etc....

The way to beat Iran is from within. Most of their young population (the majority) want new leadership. This much is known.

[schaef2k 0]

Didn't think I was vague. I said we wouldn't win it "either". If I meant we wouldn't win it no matter what, I would have simply stated why we wouldn't win.

But whatever.....enjoy your beer.

 

Fair enough. It's the definition of "win" were are in disagreement with then. I defined it as who would still be on the planet.

[p.man 7]

As far as the USA using a Nuke "Just based on their leaders actions." (Iran)

 

The problem I see is with this "Leader" he wants to wipe Isrial off the map. The US will do their best to not let that happen. The world cannot have a tyrant leader scaring other countries saying he wants to wipe them out.

1 more thing. I don't like the USA being the worlds police, but it is known that there are countries who hate us and would like to do harm to our citizens. So I feel that it is in our best interest to defend ourselves, and the other countries who are our alies.

 

Ask yourself this. Would the USA say that they would like to wipe out another country and at the same time let the world klnow about it.

 

Then ask, Would Iran? Would Osama Bin Laden?

 

I think we both know that answer.