1_man_army

we won in Korea. No, you fought to a stalemate in Korea. [/hide] The idea wasn't to conquer NK, though it probably should have been. The goal was to prevent the spread of communism into South Korea, though there was a plan to to keep pushing past the 38th Paralell, there really was no need. War with China? No thanks. Vietnam was a huge waste, but unlike Vietnam, Iraq did accomplish something when we overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's about it. And it was like 6 years ago. Why the hell are we still there again? Personally, I don't consider having to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Koreans a victory but we're splitting hairs here really. To me, victory in Korea would have been akin to victory in the 1st Gulf War - repelling and destroying his ability to form another attack for some time and then leaving on your own terms. As for the other two points, I essentially agree with you. ---------------- On topic: There is another big official opposition protest planned for Thursday. This will be interesting as it will show how dedicated the protesters are to their cause and it will be force the government to make a big decision about how to react to the ongoing dissent - I think it may be the crucial day in deciding how things will turn out.

we won in Korea. No, you fought to a stalemate in Korea.

Not yet but it will probably come after Mayweather fights Marquez (which is now delayed because of Mayweather injuring himself in training).

Members of the Iranian football team showed their solidarity to the protesters by wearing green wristbands when they played South Korea. They're brave guys, making such an international show of dissent when they have to return to Iran. I have a feeling they might be arrested for this. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 87,00.html http://www.inewsit.com/photo/gallery/Ir ... of-Mousavi

The Guardian Council is now going to recount some of the votes in certain areas, a positive step but I think they're just going through the motions to placate the protesters. Andrenal - You do realise Pakistan is no longer ruled by a despot (General Musharraf) but are now ruled by a democratically elected (if somewhat ineffective) President Zadari (or Mr 10% as he was known in the 90's).

There was really no need for that. Secondly, many religions think they are the 'chosen ones' - it isn't just Judaism, Muslims and Christians both consider their religions to be the only true religion and that followers of other faiths will suffer for not believing. I do have sympathy for the Palestinians and I've stated it numerous times but you don't need to be anti-semitic to have empathy for their plight. People with extreme views like yours (on both sides of the debate) don't help to solve the problem of Israel & Palestine. Your hate breeds hate.

The user knows but it's just a case of it coinciding with the end of the academic year delaying things, I'll give it a while and if there's no list I'll make a decision.

? Clearly a question mark is ideal here - it's in a hook shape anyway.

Khamenei has called an inquiry into the claims of vote rigging but I can't see it overturning the result.

It's interesting Yemen claimed to have arrested a man who they claimed was an Al Qaeda financier a few days back and today a number of foreign hostages have been killed in Yemen. If those people were killed by Al Qaeda (which the news states is likely) then it suggests that they've been rattled by that arrest. [hide=] No problem but I wanted to clarify anyway, I don't want to have pitched battles with anyone over multiple threads. I hate going this far off topic.[/hide]

:lol: Trust me, that's not the case. I agree though, it is the extremist/fundamentalist Muslim movement that has caused all this. So it's all down to Islam while America is scot free? Rather biased view, both sides are quite to blame. Don't argue with him, he's Jewish. That wasn't funny at all....if anything it's pretty anti-Semitic. :thumbdown: Nice one anyway adding intelligent debate to the topic. :thumbup: I think what he meant was that the poster would be biased because of that, in the same way that Muslims tend to be biased in favour of the Palestinians. I don't think there was any intentional bigotry going on. [/hide] Yes, because we all know that you just love jumping to Robert's defence. :roll: Fair comment considering what has been said in the past. I didn't say I agreed with what the poster said (that you can't argue with him because he's jewish), I just don't think it was meant in the way it was taken. Believe it or not I didn't actually pay much attention to who it was referring to. Look, I don't want a running flame war with anyone, I've said I was offended by his views on the other issue but I'm not going to drag that around (and I didn't intentionally do it here). If I think the guy is right over something or if I agree with him on something I've no problem with saying so. Again, we've had our clash on that one issue, and yes I went off the handle as I was offended, but I have no intention of bashing Robert over it in every thread for the sake of it (and I didn't here). The matter isn't one I'm going to dwell on like a child because 1 - it's futile and 2 - I have better things to do.

:lol: Trust me, that's not the case. I agree though, it is the extremist/fundamentalist Muslim movement that has caused all this. So it's all down to Islam while America is scot free? Rather biased view, both sides are quite to blame. Don't argue with him, he's Jewish. [/hide] That wasn't funny at all....if anything it's pretty anti-Semitic. :thumbdown: Nice one anyway adding intelligent debate to the topic. :thumbup: I think what he meant was that the poster would be biased because of that, in the same way that Muslims tend to be biased in favour of the Palestinians. I don't think there was any intentional bigotry going on.

Supplying my enemy with the latest tanks, guns, and technology doesn't make you guilty? America has been involved with the Middle East (primarily by backing up Israel) for decades before 9/11 or the Iraqi War of 1991. If we "finished" the job in Iraq then, the same situation we are in right now would of happened in 1999 instead of 2009. Yes, we did pay for their weapons and such during the Soviet Invasion of the country to get revenge on Russia after putting us through the Cold War. What nation are you referring to? The US provided Saddam with weapons to fight Iran during their war in the 1980's. The Afghans were given weapons and assistance to fight the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan which was during the Cold War (basically a proxy war).

Do you believe it was? All I'm reading at the moment is some funny business with shutting down facebook/texting services. It's a far cry from flat out election rigging, though. From what I could tell based on the election polls, there was little to indicate that the result seen was surprising. I also get the impression that the polls are mostly unreliable in the first place, so I don't see any evidence at this stage that the elections were rigged. There were a lot of anomalies which individually would be odd but nothing major but together make things seem crooked. For one there was widespread intimidation of Mousavi and his supporters in the run up to election, the blocking off of foreign media sources such as the BBC before the results were counted, the fact that Ahmedinejad got such a big majority and the fact that Khamenei confirmed the victory almost immediately despite the fact that Iranian law states he has to give a number of days before confirming the result ( edit - I checked it is 3 not 10 as I originally thought). Plus Mousavi "lost" in his heartland and the majority that Ahmedinejad got would mean that previously liberal voters have suddenly gotten very hardline. Edit - I think in a fair election, Ahmadinejad could have won but I think it would be in a tightly contented run off.

Florentino Perez never buys boring old defenders if he can help it.

Actually Iran has had numerous fair elections since the Revolution in 1979. The elected Presidents may not have full power because of the overseeing role of the Supreme Leader Khemenei (and Khomieni before him) and the role Guardian Council in their process. Due to this they don't really need to rig elections (normally). If this election was rigged (which we can presume it was) it wasn't rigged by Ahmadinejad, it was rigged for Ahmadinejad by people acting on Khamenei's behalf. I wouldn't excactly say he (Mousavi) was pro-western, he still wants to maintain the Islamic Republic system, he just doesn't want to antagonise the West because he thinks it reduce the sanctions that are on Iran. I'd say he was moderate but only compared to Ahmadinejad.

You think so highly of yourself, don't you? I'm not trying to draw anyone into this argument, let alone you. I have absolutely no interest in your opinions or your immature insults. While everyone else responds with maturity and grace, you simply edit my quotes and call me a moron. Please just stop making a fool of yourself, or reply with some sort of substantial argument. As I've said before, if you make such outrageous statements, people (in this case me) will be offended and when I'm offended I get irritated which is why I insulted you. You are baiting this argument because the mentally ill has very little to do with this topic and you've used it to spout your views on the mentally ill on yet another topic. For the record, I'm not going to have the debate with you on the mentally ill as I've been through it before, I edited your post to save space and I don't have a high opinion of myself, I just have a low opinion of your view on the mentally ill.

Star Wars - I just don't get the appeal, sorry. The films mercilessly rip off both Japanese films and numerous westerns transpose them into a sci fi universe in what can only be described as some of the most dull films I've ever seen. Lord of the Rings (films) - Again I don't get the appeal, sure they look brilliant (that is undeniable) but they are so overblown. Each of them is about 3 hours long (not a problem if done well) and consist of very little, they just seem so badly paced. The argument I always have over this film (& other adaptions) is that the film is faithful to its source material however, that is irrelevant - a film has to survive on its own merits in my opinion and you need to adapt to the different medium. A film can't sustain the pace and the intricate plotting of a 400+ page novel and still be decent. Oh, I know I'll be the minority of one this lol. People who go out of their way to be a non-conformist. The irony is that most of these people actually conform to their own little groups (Goths and Emo kids are the worst for this). ----------- I don't get why people make that criticism of football (mainly Americans ;) ). Are your attention spans so low that you need a score every few seconds to maintain your interest in a sport? I'd take a decent game of football over anything that basketball, baseball, hockey or American football has to offer.

I thought Ahmadinejad would be able to win (fairly) because of his support among the poor and in the rural areas but it looks like they were scared of going to a run off between him and Mousavi (which would have happened if he got less the 50% but more than any other individual candidate). I still think the the former President Khatami should have ran insteead of Mousavi just because he seems to be more charismatic. I say that because I was reading that during Mousavi's time as Prime Minister he had a lot of disputes with Khamenei (the current supreme leader) which is probably the reason that the election was rigged. I can't see the rioting lasting too long, I don't think Mousavi's supporters will have the stomach for a sustained fight. There are rumours that Mousavi might try to call for a general strike which would make things interesting but I don't see it happening either. It is interesting to see people question the regime in a real way for the first time though. The press would love to be reporting on a second Iranian Revolution but I don't think they're going to get it.

Look I'm not going to get baited into this argument (again). You know my opinion on it (that you're quite frankly a nutjob and/or a moron) and I won't take the thread off-topic for 2 or 3 pages again.

It did happen...in Israel. Again, no we can't...it isn't that simple. Western nations, Israel and the various Muslim groups/nations have all contributed to conflict in the area and all have some degree of blame. No group is innocent in it all but nobody is solely responsible either.

*Looks at the poster's location, laughs at the irony.* At least they're not killing you all like you guys did to the Native Americans when you foreigners brought your 'alien culture' to America. edit - I also find it amusing how everyone's knowledge of history in the Middle East begins around September 2001 and ignored the 80 plus years beforehand.

What single act makes Al Capone a basass? Everyone else has a single defining victory (or moment of Badassery) except Al Capone - his mob messed up the St Valentines Day because they didn't get Bugs Moran (the boss of their biggest rivals who they intended to kill on that day).

If we would just euthanize the mentally ill like I suggest, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. I don't mean offense towards disabled people, I really don't. I just feel that it's the right thing to do. Sometimes, with the proper treatment, the mentally ill can function as "normal" people in society. You also have to think, there are many... varieties... of mental illness, some more severe than others. You can't lump them all together in one group. [/hide] To add, if we euthanized every mentally ill person we would be killing more people then we would be saving from crimes. ...and committing a morally reprehensible crime but lets no go over this whole issue again.

There is no single person responsible for the conflict(s) in the Middle East - the history of conflict in the area is complex and both sides have contributed to it. There is no single person or side that can be blamed and the people who do so are either; ignorant of the wider issues or are biased towards one side.