Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Recent news and articles suggest that the Israeli gov't is closer and closer to attacking Iran. Iran is moving its nuclear facilities underground, making a strike very difficult. Do you think

A) Israel will attack BEFORE the US election, bringing us into the fight
B) Israel will attack AFTER the election, bringing us into the fight.

What would Obama's response be? Romneys?

Is this just political posturing, with the hopes that the world powers will increase or better enforce sanctions?

Discuss.

Ibanez wrote:Recent news and articles suggest that the Israeli gov't is closer and closer to attacking Iran. Iran is moving its nuclear facilities underground, making a strike very difficult. Do you think

A) Israel will attack BEFORE the US election, bringing us into the fight
B) Israel will attack AFTER the election, bringing us into the fight.

What would Obama's response be? Romneys?


Discuss.

i like pie


Also Sodomy

I think of Dr. Strangelove, with Ibanez in the Slim Pickens part.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Recent news and articles suggest that the Israeli gov't is closer and closer to attacking Iran. Iran is moving its nuclear facilities underground, making a strike very difficult. Do you think

A) Israel will attack BEFORE the US election, bringing us into the fight
B) Israel will attack AFTER the election, bringing us into the fight.

What would Obama's response be? Romneys?


Discuss.

i like pie


Also Sodomy

The real question is, do you enjoy pie during sodomy? If so, that's wicked fucking cool!

93henfan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
i like pie


Also Sodomy

The real question is, do you enjoy pie during sodomy? If so, that's wicked fucking cool!

He REALLY likes sodomizing pie. Like American Pie.

Let the Joos fend for themselves.

Next!

Grizalltheway wrote:Let the Joos fend for themselves.

Next!

This.

Grizalltheway wrote:Let the Joos fend for themselves.

Next!

My money is on the Joos.

Grizalltheway wrote:Let the Joos fend for themselves.

Next!

Yeah, that didn't work out well in the 1930s and 40s. But I'm sure that made your job easier, ehh Herr GATW?

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Let the Joos fend for themselves.

Next!

Yeah, that didn't work out well in the 1930s and 40s. But I'm sure that made your job easier, ehh Herr GATW?

Apples to oranges there, Rupaul.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Yeah, that didn't work out well in the 1930s and 40s. But I'm sure that made your job easier, ehh Herr GATW?

Apples to oranges there, Rupaul.

I know, we didn't know fully what was happening I the Jews. We knew the rounding up and such. We didn't know the extent.


But still, we knew something was wrong. America turned away a boat of Jews trying to escape Hitler an we sent them back.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: Apples to oranges there, Rupaul.

I know, we didn't know fully what was happening I the Jews. We knew the rounding up and such. We didn't know the extent.


But still, we knew something was wrong. America turned away a boat of Jews trying to escape Hitler an we sent them back.

the basis is true. As a trained and active historian, the similarities exist.

Hell, look at how we appeased Hitler and how we are appeasing Iran.

Ibanez wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I know, we didn't know fully what was happening I the Jews. We knew the rounding up and such. We didn't know the extent.


But still, we knew something was wrong. America turned away a boat of Jews trying to escape Hitler an we sent them back.

the basis is true. As a trained and active historian, the similarities exist.

Hell, look at how we appeased Hitler and how we are appeasing Iran.

How does cutting off their lifeblood (oil) constitute appeasement? Shit, we had American companies (IBM, for one) actively doing business with Nazi Germany. Not the same at all.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote: the basis is true. As a trained and active historian, the similarities exist.

Hell, look at how we appeased Hitler and how we are appeasing Iran.

How does cutting off their lifeblood (oil) constitute appeasement? Shit, we had American companies (IBM, for one) actively doing business with Nazi Germany. Not the same at all.

It was the Japs that we really cut the oil. After we cut that, they had no alternative but to attack us, knock us out, and the grab resources from the PacRim.


We appeased Hitler be giving him Czechsolvakia, the Sudentland, we failed to enforce the ToV(before the crash of 1929) Hitler was going to Africa, the Balkans andRussia for oil. There are countless studies on the appeasement of Germany in 1939. Europe kept trusting Hitler in hopes of avoiding a war.


Today, with our sanctions, we are similarly appeasing Tehran.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote: the basis is true. As a trained and active historian, the similarities exist.

Hell, look at how we appeased Hitler and how we are appeasing Iran.

How does cutting off their lifeblood (oil) constitute appeasement? Shit, we had American companies (IBM, for one) actively doing business with Nazi Germany. Not the same at all.

IBM providing counting machines doesn't prove your theory(whatever it is). Do some real research, NOT GOOGLE, on the European powers appeasing Hitler.

-
Obama told the Jews not to do anything until after the election
But it's seems that only the American Jews are listening to him

My point was that we aren't treating Iran the same way Germany was treated before WWII, and thus the situations aren't the same. Get it?

Grizalltheway wrote:My point was that we aren't treating Iran the same way Germany was treated before WWII, and thus the situations aren't the same. Get it?

Same and Similiar are two different words. I didn't say the same. To appease is to pacify. In 1939 we made concession after concession, especially when Germany began to rearm, all to avoid a war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Think outside the box.

Ibanez wrote:Recent news and articles suggest that the Israeli gov't is closer and closer to attacking Iran. Iran is moving its nuclear facilities underground, making a strike very difficult. Do you think

A) Israel will attack BEFORE the US election, bringing us into the fight
B) Israel will attack AFTER the election, bringing us into the fight.

What would Obama's response be? Romneys?

Is this just political posturing, with the hopes that the world powers will increase or better enforce sanctions?

Discuss.

Either way, I'm not sure that we'll need to get into the fight. I think Isreal wins easily. Our role might be purely diplomatic - trying to keep other nations from joining in.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Recent news and articles suggest that the Israeli gov't is closer and closer to attacking Iran. Iran is moving its nuclear facilities underground, making a strike very difficult. Do you think

A) Israel will attack BEFORE the US election, bringing us into the fight
B) Israel will attack AFTER the election, bringing us into the fight.

What would Obama's response be? Romneys?

Is this just political posturing, with the hopes that the world powers will increase or better enforce sanctions?

Discuss.

Either way, I'm not sure that we'll need to get into the fight. I think Isreal wins easily. Our role might be purely diplomatic - trying to keep other nations from joining in.

I hope you are right. It is not in our best interest to get involved (directly).

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: How does cutting off their lifeblood (oil) constitute appeasement? ****, we had American companies (IBM, for one) actively doing business with Nazi Germany. Not the same at all.

It was the Japs that we really cut the oil. After we cut that, they had no alternative but to attack us, knock us out, and the grab resources from the PacRim.


We appeased Hitler be giving him Czechsolvakia, the Sudentland, we failed to enforce the ToV(before the crash of 1929) Hitler was going to Africa, the Balkans andRussia for oil. There are countless studies on the appeasement of Germany in 1939. Europe kept trusting Hitler in hopes of avoiding a war.


Today, with our sanctions, we are similarly appeasing Tehran.

Hey... points of order here...

When you say "WE" appeased Hitler in 1938, I assume by WE you mean our then future allies the Brits and the French, because "WE" the USA were largely uninvolved in the prewar European politics.

Also, dont buy the Hollywood version of Pearl Harbor. We played strategic politics with Japan, but if they had not already swallowed more than half of China and Manchuria there would have been no oil embargoes to "force their hand". Japan jumped in with both feet against the counsel of their best strategists and they reaped the whirlwind as a result. To this day they are in complete denial about their activities from 1930 onwards, and of course their willing apologists in Hollywood painted things a little to glossy in that absolute historical a$$wipe of a movie.


Also Sodomy

Back on topic here dream boys, let the joos manage their environment, mmmkay? If'n they need more cordite, we can oblige, no?

Wedgebuster wrote:Back on topic here dream boys, let the joos manage their environment, mmmkay? If'n they need more cordite, we can oblige, no?

Whenever they DO handle things themselves, the left and the UN have a collective hissy fit.


Also Sodomy

Take the leash that we have off Israel and let them do what they want. Nobody better bitch about gas prices though when they turn the oil fields of the middle east into glass.

Take the leash that we have off Israel and let them do what they want. Nobody better bitch about gas prices though when they turn the oil fields of the middle east into glass.

Isn't that a good idea to keep them on the leash then???