Iran

[bigboab]

Now that it is 'on the cards' that Iran is going to be attacked either by America or Israel on behalf of America or vice-versa. Where does this put the coalition troops in Iraq. Should the above happen then Iraq would become a buffer zone or a 'launching site' for any assault. Should the coalition troops withdraw from Iraq at the first sign of any conflict with Iran?

[Biggles]

Should the US attack Iran I think it is unlikely that many of the Coalition forces would remain. I really don't know about Blair. It is unlikely to happen just yet so there is a chance he could be re-elected in May before difficult choices have to be made.

If Israel attacks it will only be selective bombing of sites and the Iranians may respond in kind as they have the missiles to do so. This might be a bit tense but it would unlikely be major or last long. In which case, I think the Coalition would continue for a while but that it would disolve over the following months as public opinion would determine (rightly or wrongly) that Israel did not act alone. Israel will not invade Iran as it does not have the manpower for that kind of large scale assault on such a large country involving several border crossings - minimally Jordan and Iraq and possibly also Turkey.

At this point, I think we are looking at sabre rattling in the hope that Iran is seen to comply with the agreement with the EU, which would largely be acceptable to Washington if adequate inspections are allowed. The danger is that Iran takes the hump and goes for the bomb. This latter option depending on how close they are. Some think that they are already there as they obtained the necessary expertise and equipment some time ago. All a bit of a gamble. They may, like Israel, refuse to confirm or deny their status for years.

[bigboab]

Should the US attack Iran I think it is unlikely that many of the Coalition forces would remain. I really don't know about Blair. It is unlikely to happen just yet so there is a chance he could be re-elected in May before difficult choices have to be made.

If Israel attacks it will only be selective bombing of sites and the Iranians may respond in kind as they have the missiles to do so. This might be a bit tense but it would unlikely be major or last long. In which case, I think the Coalition would continue for a while but that it would disolve over the following months as public opinion would determine (rightly or wrongly) that Israel did not act alone. Israel will not invade Iran as it does not have the manpower for that kind of large scale assault on such a large country involving several border crossings - minimally Jordan and Iraq and possibly also Turkey.

At this point, I think we are looking at sabre rattling in the hope that Iran is seen to comply with the agreement with the EU, which would largely be acceptable to Washington if adequate inspections are allowed. The danger is that Iran takes the hump and goes for the bomb. This latter option depending on how close they are. Some think that they are already there as they obtained the necessary expertise and equipment some time ago. All a bit of a gamble. They may, like Israel, refuse to confirm or deny their status for years.

A simple yes or no would have done. :)

[Biggles]

:(

I am a Civil Servent.


err...

What is a simple Yes or No? :blink:

[manker]

:(

I am a Civil Servent.

What is a simple Yes or No? :blink:'Feck arf, you can't claim housing benefit' - some Civil Servants don't seem to have that trouble :unsure:



Btw, I enjoyed your post, it put a realistic perspective forward that flys in the face of the sensationalist news reports I've seen on the matter. I may have learnt a bit too!

[Biggles]

Thank you. (I hope I am right :ermm: )

Housing?

*shudder*

There are distinct advantages to working where the public may not enter. Oh yes indeed.

[cpt_azad]

Simple yes or no?

There is no simple yes or no....biggles post was very well written (good job btw :) ).

As for me, let Israel attack, whatever the consequences for that action is, it's gonna be more than what Israel deserves for what they've been doing since it's creation.

[j2k4]

I don't default to open conflict with Iran.

It is interesting just now that the similar question exists with regard to North Korea, the difference being, of course, the cultural mores of the constituencies concerned.
I find myself wondering how much attention North Korea and Iran are paying to each other's situation; Kim Jong Il's overt belligerence into the bargain, the scenarios are remarkably similar, owing to the generally "hotter" climate in the mideast.

One wonders which situation will reach crisis first, or if at all.

I think, apart from the developmental aspect in Iran, the situation is most likely to remain static.

I could go on, but only in a droning, academic way. :huh:

Consider yourselves lucky. :D

[cpt_azad]

Praise the lord for J2 isn't droning on :) :flowers:

[j2k4]

Praise the lord for J2 isn't droning on :) :flowers:

Ah-I did not know you were religious, mon capitain! :)

[Rat Faced]

He didnt say which Lord he was praising..

Might be Lord Irvine or sth :unsure: :ph34r:

[Biggles]

He didnt say which Lord he was praising..

Might be Lord Irvine or sth :unsure: :ph34r:

Or Sutch even
:01:

[Arm]

Why attack Iran? What did they ever do to you? Oh yeah, they got alot of oil.

[j2k4]

Why attack Iran? What did they ever do to you? Oh yeah, they got alot of oil.

They do?:huh:

[Rat Faced]

Why attack Iran? What did they ever do to you? Oh yeah, they got alot of oil.

Ask Mr Carter..
:blink:

I do believe they do not have a lot of oil...

However, like Afganistan, they have been a stop to oil/gas pipelines that have been proposed in the past :rolleyes:

I dont believe that the "oil" is a reason in the Iran equation however, as those pipelines are no longer needed.. they have Afganistan now ;)

However... how come no one is asking Israel to open up to inspections? Isnt this a little one sided again? Dont you think the whole of the Islamic world will see this, yet again, as "one rule for Muslims, another for Jews"?

[j2k4]

However... how come no one is asking Israel to open up to inspections? Isnt this a little one sided again? Dont you think the whole of the Islamic world will see this, yet again, as "one rule for Muslims, another for Jews"?

Here is another question:

Exactly who could legitimately request/demand Israel submit to inspections?

The U.N. holds Israel in emnity, providing a forum (as well as resounding applause) for whatever anti-semitic rants seek airing.

Israel is not, therefore, inclined to hold to U.N. stipulation.

Israel is a U.S. ally, so that takes us out of it; who's left?

None of this is to say it's not a good idea, but certainly one can understand why Israel would prefer to keep it's neighbors (and the world-at-large) in the dark as to specifics; actually, I don't think the U.S. has the entire picture, either, but there is, after all, the alliance to consider.

[bigboab]

Here is another question:

Exactly who could legitimately request/demand Israel submit to inspections?

The U.N. holds Israel in emnity, providing a forum (as well as resounding applause) for whatever anti-semitic rants seek airing.

Israel is not, therefore, inclined to hold to U.N. stipulation.

Israel is a U.S. ally, so that takes us out of it; who's left?

None of this is to say it's not a good idea, but certainly one can understand why Israel would prefer to keep it's neighbors (and the world-at-large) in the dark as to specifics; actually, I don't think the U.S. has the entire picture, either, but there is, after all, the alliance to consider.

If this is the case then why has Israel not been invaded for holding weapons of mass destruction.

[j2k4]

If this is the case then why has Israel not been invaded for holding weapons of mass destruction.

Because they are our ally, and nobody else is up to it.

Perhaps the U.N. could resolve to invade Israel, and try to arrange a coalition to execute their plan.

[UKResident]

If Iran chooses to develop nuclear weapons they are quite entitled to do so, they are not illegal. Who has the right to tell them otherwise, the US, Israel? l don't think so! l hope they get them, and soon, a little more "balance of power" in the Middle East can only be a good thing, it may even bring Israel to heel after years of being "untouchable".


The U.N. holds Israel in emnity, providing a forum (as well as resounding applause) for whatever anti-semitic rants seek airing.

Why is it that when the UN requests that Israel uphold international law it is seen as anti-semitism?

[ilw]

If Iran chooses to develop nuclear weapons they are quite entitled to do so, they are not illegal. Who has the right to tell them otherwise,
I believe that Iran signed the non proliferation treaty (and to my knowledge hasn't withdrawn).

[bigboab]

Because they are our ally, and nobody else is up to it.

Perhaps the U.N. could resolve to invade Israel, and try to arrange a coalition to execute their plan.

Bully Rules 12A, Subsection 4.c: It is ok for me and my friends to do it. But no one else is allowed to do it.

p.s. Look under hypocrisy.

[UKResident]

I believe that Iran signed the non proliferation treaty (and to my knowledge hasn't withdrawn).

That's right, a non-legally binding treaty. Under Article X they can withdraw any time they like, so what happens when you bomb their facilities? They'll just withdraw from the treaty and acquire nuclear weapons. Then what? At least they are offering inspections to the European delegation, the big stick will backfire.

Israel. Cuba, Pakistan and India have never signed, and North Korea pulled out. But of course, Israel, Pakistan and India are allies, so that's OK then. Why weren't sanctions put on these countries? l say as long as Israel has them, others should too, if no-one in the Middle East should have them, Israel should be made to give theirs up, and allow verification.

As to the treaty itself; one of the main tenets was that nuclear armed countries should actively pursue the goal of a nuclear free world, do you see that happenning? 1967 the treaty was drawn up, 38 years ago, which nuclear armed country hasn't done the opposite in that time, and consistantly upgraded their arsenals? Only a couple of weeks ago Russia announced that it was developing a new class of nuclear weapon, who kicked up a fuss about that, except for Canada?

[manker]

l say as long as Israel has them, others should too, Do you really mean that. Since that is the case at the moment, do you really wish for all countries in the Middle East to be armed with nuclear weapons.

I certainly don't.

If you're saying that if Israel have them then then it increases the likelyhood of other countries in the area wanting to procure them for defense purposes - so Israel shouldn't have them, then I would agree wholeheartedly.

I think the best solution, for me, would be that Israel didn't have them at all - rather than to arm the entire Middle with nukes. You were probably implying that too but if there is no way to disarm Israel then the situation where Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East is entirely more preferable than every country in the Middle East being armed with nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't you agree.

[UKResident]

Do you really mean that. Since that is the case at the moment, do you really wish for all countries in the Middle East to be armed with nuclear weapons.

I certainly don't.

If you're saying that if Israel have them then then it increases the likelyhood of other countries in the area wanting to procure them for defense purposes - so Israel shouldn't have them, then I would agree wholeheartedly.

I think the best solution, for me, would be that Israel didn't have them at all - rather than to arm the entire Middle with nukes. You were probably implying that too but if there is no way to disarm Israel then the situation where Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East is entirely more preferable than every country in the Middle East being armed with nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't you agree.

l agree with you up to a point, of course; l too would like to see Israel not have them, but l also believe that if Iran had them we may get them off Israel. Why do you think Iran would want them? For the same reason India and Pakistan did.

Now look at that conflict, they both now realise that they can no longer go to war with each other, and for the first time they are genuinely talking peace. They even have Kashmir on the negotiating table, something India has insisted would never happen for the last 57 years. They are even considering the possibility of an independant Kashmir, would that have happened without the nuclear weapons, or if only one side had them? Never.

Countries with nuclear weapons are in danger of feeling invincible, a bit like the point in another thread somewhere about carrying guns for self protection. Why does Israel need them? Their conventional armed forces have wiped out every army on their borders in a few days.

They have them so they can continue to oppress the Palestinians and stick a finger up to their neighbours. There will never be peace in the Middle East all the time Israel occupies Palestine, unless there is a sea change in the area. Don't be fooled by these latest peace moves, they'll come to nothing. Israel will not give back the land it has stolen in the West Bank because it doesn't have to, who can stop them doing what they want? Only the US, and they won't.

That's why l say it wouldn't be such a bad idea to see the balance of power in the Middle East shift away from Israel a little, to even things up. Maybe then we can have negotiations to get them both to give them up, which will also happen one day with India and Pakistan.

[manker]

I can maybe see how the nuclear stalemate has facilitated negotiations regarding Kashmir but what a helluva test! There have been tense situations over the last 5 years that I can think of where I've pondered if one of them would declare war where a nuke would be deployed. It is a testament, of sorts, to the respective leaders that it did not come to that but it was touch and go there for a while.

However, the Middle East is an entirely more complicated problem. I'm not so sure, in fact I'm particularly unsure, whether the same stand off would ensue. The risk would be much greater since Israel would have at least six different nuclear threats to contend with c.f. only one for India/Pakistan. The situation would be untenable. If they were all armed, I'd give it maybe 2 months before a nuclear winter in the Middle East.

If only Iran was armed then it would still throw up new problems because who knows what sort of proliferation treaties they would draw up. They may decide to tolerate Palestinian raids into Israeli territory - but not revenge mossad attacks, maybe there is only a small likelyhood of that but it would certainly bring the threat of nuclear war closer, in my opinion, rather than dissapate it to the point of them both disarming.

Israel is never going to fire it's nukes as things stand, ever - it has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Putting politics to one side for a moment and looking at the humanitarian aspect, this situation now, of Israel being the only nuclear power in the region, is much preferable to any other country being armed as well.

As I say, for Israel to disarm their nukes would be perfect, but that just doesn't seem possible therefore I believe it's best to settle for the second best option.

[UKResident]

As I say, for Israel to disarm their nukes would be perfect, but that just doesn't seem possible therefore I believe it's best to settle for the second best option.

l'm not advocating every Middle East country should be nuclear armed, just Iran. l think the shift in the balance of power would be a good thing, but who knows, it's all speculation at the moment, because we none of us know what's going on. Israel has them for a reason, they don't want Iran to have them for the same reason. You have to also consider the "Cold War" and the concept of MAD, it has often been argued that the balance of power actually saved the world from a 3rd world war. The US is still the only country to have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, they also threatened to use them in Korea if the North didn't agree to a ceasefire, this was when the US was being badly beaten. Every country knows that if they used these weapons they would likey be wiped out in return, they use them as a deterent to the use of conventional warfare being waged against them.

[manker]

l'm not advocating every Middle East country should be nuclear armed, just Iran. l think the shift in the balance of power would be a good thing, but who knows, it's all speculation at the moment, because we none of us know what's going on. Israel has them for a reason, they don't want Iran to have them for the same reason. You have to also consider the "Cold War" and the concept of MAD, it has often been argued that the balance of power actually saved the world from a 3rd world war. The US is still the only country to have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, they also threatened to use them in Korea if the North didn't agree to a ceasefire, this was when the US was being badly beaten. Every country knows that if they used these weapons they would likey be wiped out in return, they use them as a deterent to the use of conventional warfare being waged against them.Well, you did initially say that others should have them, inferring more countries in the Middle East than just Iran, if Israel has them, that's why I made my points.

However, I do see what you mean about MAD - it's just that I consider the Middle East to be a more complex issue than either the cold war or the Korean war when MacArthur was having his mentalist spell, he actually wanted to use them long before a ceasefire was thought about.

I'm not at all convinced about the validity of past experiences of stand offs being used as a rationale to arm more countries with nukes.

There is also another factor that troubles me, Saddam surely knew that he would be overthrown and likely killed, along with his army and tens of thousands of the populace if he didn't submit to the might of the coalition. He did not submit. If Saddam could have let a nuke off in Time Square he would have done so, without a second thought, in the full knowledge that it would result in his country being razed to the ground.

What is saying that the Iranian incumbent, or a future one, will not turn out to be similarly inclined. It's another risk I'm more comfortable not taking.

[UKResident]

l guess it comes down to how you perceive Iran. l don't see them as another Iraq, and l believe if it hadn't been for the hostage crisis all those years ago, the failed rescue, and the US's well known penchant for revenge, (Cuba) things could be a lot different. They have long been the most democratic country in the Middle East, Israel excepted, and have had many years of friendly association with Britain. (a few unfriendly ones too)

l don't believe what you say about Saddam either, he had chenmical weapons during the first Gulf War but didn't use them, and remember, he ran away and hid this time, like the coward he is, l don't believe he's the suicide type. The US refused to confirm or deny that they took nuclear weapons to the Gulf the first time round, so Saddam wasn't sure.

l still say countries want nuclear weapons to avoid being attacked by conventional means, assured destruction isn't on anyones mind. You only need to convince your enemies that you are prepared to use them. It worked for Pakistan, it's working for North Korea, the US isn't prepared to take the risk on them having them, especially after the threats to use them during the Korean War by the US, the shoes are on both feet now.

[j2k4]

Bully Rules 12A, Subsection 4.c: It is ok for me and my friends to do it. But no one else is allowed to do it.

p.s. Look under hypocrisy.

Pretty much the way it works, Boab.

[Arm]

I do believe they do not have a lot of oil...
Youre quite ignorant if you belive that.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_pro

As you can see, alot of oil. And why does the Us wanna invade Iran? For the oil of course. Just as they overthrew their democratically elected president 50 years ago for the same reason. :frusty:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Youre quite ignorant if you belive that.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_pro

As you can see, alot of oil. And why does the Us wanna invade Iran? For the oil of course. Just as they overthrew their democratically elected president 50 years ago for the same reason. :frusty:

To be honest, you are the last person who should be questioning RF on "ignorance". Under your reasoning using that chart, why is the U.S. not threatening to invade Mexico? They produce more oil than Iran. And geographically, they would be a whole lot closer.

[bigboab]

To be honest, you are the last person who should be questioning RF on "ignorance". Under your reasoning using that chart, why is the U.S. not threatening to invade Mexico? They produce more oil than Iran. And geographically, they would be a whole lot closer.

If your intention is to control/patrol the world. Is it not more sensible to have 'petrol stations' dotted all over it. :cool:

[UKResident]

Under your reasoning using that chart, why is the U.S. not threatening to invade Mexico? They produce more oil than Iran. And geographically, they would be a whole lot closer.

Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that there are 100+ million people in Mexico, plus a possible 20 million more potential Mexican saboteurs in the US. Add that to the fact that Mexico has an Army, Navy and Air Force designed for home security and you have the sort of country the US does not pick fights with.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

...Add that to the fact that Mexico has an Army, Navy and Air Force designed for home security and you have the sort of country the US does not pick fights with.

The Mexican military is hardly anything worth refering to as a military. Perhaps you have heard of a politcal party known as the Institutional Revolutionary Party? Once you remove any power your military has in your own country, what hope (or want) do you have of properly defending your country?

[hobbes]

Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that there are 100+ million people in Mexico, plus a possible 20 million more potential Mexican saboteurs in the US. Add that to the fact that Mexico has an Army, Navy and Air Force designed for home security and you have the sort of country the US does not pick fights with.


ROFL, that is all I can say. You may be able to pull numbers from a site (100 million people), but if you haven't been to Mexico, you just can't appreciate how funny it is to think of them as a military foe of any kind.

Besides the actual military has not really been a problem. We wipe up any troops that want to engage us in battle, it is the invisible resistance (freedom fights, rebels, insurgents, or whatever term you like) that has always been the problem.

We did it to Britain in the Colonial War, Vietnam did it to us.

[Rat Faced]

Youre quite ignorant if you belive that.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_pro

As you can see, alot of oil. And why does the Us wanna invade Iran? For the oil of course. Just as they overthrew their democratically elected president 50 years ago for the same reason. :frusty:

I think about 80% of the oilfield is under Iraq, which is one of the reasons Saddam attacked Iran to start with.. I think they may have a large Gas Field shared with Afganistan too.

On saying that, I hadnt realised they had developed the part of that oilfield in their territory to such an extent.. I was under the impression that every time they'd opened a facility, Hussain had bombed it (so that lot must have been developed in the last 12 years or so, not bad going :rolleyes: )

:lol:

[UKResident]

it is the invisible resistance (freedom fights, rebels, insurgents, or whatever term you like) that has always been the problem.

Exactly my point.

[clocker]

Exactly my point.
Unfortunate that hobbes had to make it for you then, as he made a distinction not apparent in your post.

Then again, I may have been befuddled by nicotine.

[j2k4]

Then again, I may have been befuddled by nicotine.

It happened to me all the time before my boss made me quit smoking.

Now it happens for other reasons, apparently.

[Arm]

To be honest, you are the last person who should be questioning RF on "ignorance".
Really? Then how to you explain the first time the US(via the CIA) overthrew Irans democratic government and installed a dictator in the 50s? Because democracy is evil and America must restore dictatorship? ;)

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Really? Then how to you explain the first time the US(via the CIA) overthrew Irans democratic government and installed a dictator in the 50s? Because democracy is evil and America must restore dictatorship? ;)

;), If you were paying attention, that had nothing to do with what I said. Ah, the ignorance of youth.

[Arm]

;), If you were paying attention, that had nothing to do with what I said. Ah, the ignorance of youth.
Yeah it did. You said under my reasoning, why wouldnt the US try to invade Mexico?

The reason why is that thanks to the great coup of 2000, now the assholes running this country can do what they want and since Irans people wont ever let the US control them again after the hardship faced under the Shah. The only way for the US to gain control is through a complete military invasion. :tank: :01:

The reason why the Us is going after the middle-east is because it's weak and has a shitload of oil. A perfect target. :1eye:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

There were two seperate questions in my statement.

1) Who are you to refer to RF as "ignorant".

2) Why you say Iran, when there are country producing higher amounts of oil. And can you please answer this question without rehashing what others have said about the subject previously?

P.S.: Why do you just mention the American backed coup? You never mention the fact that Britian ousted that shah's father. Not only that, you never once refer to the British occupancy of Iran during WW2, or the following decades of near colonial British domination.

[j2k4]

P.S.: Why do you just mention the American backed coup? You never mention the fact that Britian ousted that shah's father. Not only that, you never once refer to the British occupancy of Iran during WW2, or the following decades of near colonial British domination.


Arm doesn't mention such things because he doesn't know about such things; he just installed his google toolbar, and doesn't yet know his "pro" from his "con".

[Arm]

Arm doesn't mention such things because he doesn't know about such things; he just installed his google toolbar, and doesn't yet know his "pro" from his "con".
I know the opposite of progress is congress:smoke:and I never installed a Google toolabar on my computer. Since I use Mozilla I find it to be quite useless. :unsure:


P.S.: Why do you just mention the American backed coup?
Because I find it to be an intresting part of history. A good example of American hypocrisy. It also helps that my dads Iranian so ide like to know a little about the country he came from.

And the reason that I mention Iran is because thats what this topics about and because Irans at the top of the list for countries the Us wants to invade.

So lets keep up this pointless argument, children. :argue:

Edit: And the reason I called Rat Faced ignorant it because for someone to think one of the top oil producing countries in the world doent have much oil is well, just.....Ignorant.

:whistling

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Because I find it to be an intresting part of history. A good example of American hypocrisy. It also helps that my dads Iranian so ide like to know a little about the country he came from.

Is the U.S. the only ones in the world who is guilty of this? Stop being selective, the big picture is really an interesting thing.


And the reason that I mention Iran is because thats what this topics about and because Irans at the top of the list for countries the Us wants to invade.

Please post a list to this magical paper that lists in order what countries the U.S. wants to invade.


So lets keep up this pointless argument, children. :argue:

So......asking you to explain what you said is argueing?


Edit: And the reason I called Rat Faced ignorant it because for someone to think one of the top oil producing countries in the world doent have much oil is well, just.....Ignorant.

Could he possibly just having the proverbial "brain fart"? Least we don't see him posting links to outwar type clones.

[UKResident]

Unfortunate that hobbes had to make it for you then, as he made a distinction not apparent in your post.

Then again, I may have been befuddled by nicotine.

Following me around like an arsehole suits you Clonker, and it's not nicotine that befuddled your brain, it's being made to look an idiot.

[Arm]

Could he possibly just having the proverbial "brain fart"? Least we don't see him posting links to outwar type clones.
Could he possibly just having the proverbial "brain fart"? What the hell does that mean?

Wow, I was never gonna reply to this topic again until I read this. This is fucking amazing that someone is still bitching about that. What you couldnt come up with a good comeback to what I said so you resorted to the good 'ol old hominem? Attacking the arguer but not the argument.

And Drug Runners.net is not a simple Outwar clone. Kings of Chaos is an Outwar clone. Drug Runners took what Outwar did and made it alot more kickass. :cool:
And besides, that link to my cartel was defunct a few hours after I posted it. :wacko:

And the magical paper that says what countries the Us wants to invade, well if you remember correctly they wanna go after Iran. They also talk about going after Syria and North Korea. Not that they will but there were talks. Plus they jokingly say France. Of course if we invaded France it would be the national equivlent of shooting yourself in the head. :cool2:

And what big picture? That the US is invading soverign nations, our civil liberties are being taken away and the economy is devastated. The worlds fucked. :w00t:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Could he possibly just having the proverbial "brain fart"? What the hell does that mean?

Wow, I was never gonna reply to this topic again until I read this. This is fucking amazing that someone is still bitching about that. What you couldnt come up with a good comeback to what I said so you resorted to the good 'ol old hominem? Attacking the arguer but not the argument.

1) The phrase is AD hominem.

2) Once again, no one is arqueing with you. I asked you explain what you said. How is that attacking you?

[Cheese]

1) The phrase is AD hominem.



That would have been much funnier if you'd said "The phrase is AD hominem, you idiot."





Well to me anyhow, I'm easily amused. And I don't think Arm is an idiot but it just works for my lame joke...I'll shut up now...

[Arm]

That would have been much funnier if you'd said "The phrase is AD hominem, you idiot."
:D That would be funny.

And yeah HMPL you were using ad hominem (I coulda sworn I spelt that right but I guess my typings are all fucked up. :crying:). You couldnt find a good comeback to something I said so you just took a mistake I made and used it against me despite it being irrevelent to the debate. :cool:

[j2k4]

Arm-

If your curiousity is piqued because your father is of Iranian extraction, I can think of many more productive ways to go about satiating your thirst, chief amongst them dropping the attitude and signing on in here for the long haul.

I promise you, nobody's knowledge deficit increases by partaking. ;)

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

You couldnt find a good comeback to something I said

Why would I need a comeback? I asked you a question. Why do you feel threatened by a question?