Grab yer guns boyz

[Blown 472]

I think he might be referring to not stepping in and stopping Hitler before he went all bezerko (because he could) and killed millions of many nationalities. Millions on all sides ended up dieing as a result of the ensuing WW2. And there were a few times when if things hadn't gone just right Hitler might have prevailed.
The difference with Iran is they could kill millions with the touch of a button with nukes. Is it wise to ignore a madman with this potential power that has already stated he will wipe the US and Israel off the map given the means and opportunity?
While many countries have nukes, fortunately they are not managed by radical beserkos that intend to use them for other than deterrent means.
North Korea is another. Should he be ignored also and allowed to get nukes so he can attack his neighbors and the US west coast?
While any number of countries have the ability to wipe Iran or NK off the map with nukes, a first strike by either of these madmen could just about destroy Israel and a bunch of US cities before that happened. Not to mention the lasting effect on the entire planet making parts of it uninhabitable for decades or centuries, with fallout on the rest of it causing severe health and environmental problems for the entire world.
My opinion is that nuclear war should be avoided at all costs, including massive and total conventional destruction of rogue powers that intend to develop and use nukes just because they can, if necessary. The US may be the only country capable of stopping these threats with conventional non-nuclear means. While Russia and China undoubtedly have extensive conventional weaponry I doubt you'll see them used on countries they supply, like Iran or NK.
The US could likely wipe out these threats with 2 or 3 carrier groups without a soldier ever setting foot on these countries soil. Not talking about going in like Iraq and attempting to convert and rebuild with ground troops. Take out the nuclear threat and protect neighboring allys as necessary and move on. If that includes bombing the begezzus out of NK's army (which is large) so they don't take out SK so be it.
The alternative will be almost certain nuclear war at some point. So pick the lesser evil. Madmen with nuclear arsenals building them with the full intention of using them aren't good for the world's future survival outlook.
Could you show me where the leader of Iran said he is going to wipe out the US? never read that anywhere?
Worried about the enviroment impacts of nukes but yet we use DU weapons on other countries without a care? how does that work?
And btw, we heard all this crap with the lead up to attacking iraq and guess what, didn't find a thing. You too should step away from the kool aid, and re read this article I posted.

[Rexone]

Now what fun would that be?? was it a direct call out? I post something that was written by someone else and that is a provocation? why because it goes agianst everything they have been lead to believe so that is a provocation?
The one liners is what I was referring to on provocation.
And I have called others on it in the past too. I don't read every thread here in detail and rarely post here, don't have the time. But when I do read one and notice the above I do comment on it since I happen to be the mod here attempting to keep the forum on track with discussion and debate vs provolking other members with one liners, shit talk etc. Telling someone to jack off to SOF mag isn't really what PR forum is about now is it?

[eliminatedsprinter]

Which mistakes would those be???
Are you telling me you don't know about the great depression and the rise of the Third Reich or the role isolationism/non interventionism had in exacerbating these phenomena?? Or is this just a way of asking a rhetorical question, that you know would require a book to explain and thus end the discussion?
Just to keep discussion alive, I will give you a few very very basic sentences.
The U.S. and many industrialized powers policies of "isolationism" and economic "protectionism" partly caused and greatly exacebated the post WWI world wide depression. This led to the despirate conditions and the evironment that allowed for the rise of Fascism and National Socialism. The world's Democratic Power's policies of "non-intervention" and appeasment allowed Hitler etc to build up and use military power etc.etc etc...These policies (isolationism and non itervention/appeasement) in the face of those looming threats are seen as mistakes by all credible historians in the civilized world..

[Old Texan]

Are you telling me you don't know about the great depression and the rise of the Third Reich or the role isolationism/non interventionism had in exacerbating these phenomena?? Or is this just a way of asking a rhetorical question, that you know would require a book to explain and thus end the discussion?
Just to keep discussion alive, I will give you a few very very basic sentences.
The U.S. and many industrialized powers policies of "isolationism" and economic "protectionism" partly caused and greatly exacebated the post WWI world wide depression. This led to the despirate conditions and the evironment that allowed for the rise of Fascism and National Socialism. The world's Democratic Power's policies of "non-intervention" and appeasment allowed Hitler etc to build up and use military power etc.etc etc...These policies (isolationism and non itervention/appeasement) in the face of those looming threats are seen as mistakes by all credible historians in the civilized world..
These conditions are not unlike the unrest in European Muslim communtities. Also the the new "Iranian Hitler" was met this past week with student protestors condemning his policies and regime.
Top that off with the Saudi youth with no purpose in life due to the fact they have lots of money, are for the majority well educated, and simply bored are the basic recruits for the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of terroristic values-ie: Osama, and you have a bad pot brewing in the radical islamist world.
Blown really needs to factor in a little history and unbiased current event reporting to his freethinking diet.
Question Blown- What's worse a Zionist or an Islamic Extremist wanting to destroy the free world?
It seems you may have to choose........

[Blown 472]

Are you telling me you don't know about the great depression and the rise of the Third Reich or the role isolationism/non interventionism had in exacerbating these phenomena?? Or is this just a way of asking a rhetorical question, that you know would require a book to explain and thus end the discussion?
Just to keep discussion alive, I will give you a few very very basic sentences.
The U.S. and many industrialized powers policies of "isolationism" and economic "protectionism" partly caused and greatly exacebated the post WWI world wide depression. This led to the despirate conditions and the evironment that allowed for the rise of Fascism and National Socialism. The world's Democratic Power's policies of "non-intervention" and appeasment allowed Hitler etc to build up and use military power etc.etc etc...These policies (isolationism and non itervention/appeasement) in the face of those looming threats are seen as mistakes by all credible historians in the civilized world..
So you are saying that those conditions lead to the rise of Hitler?

[Blown 472]

These conditions are not unlike the unrest in European Muslim communtities. Also the the new "Iranian Hitler" was met this past week with student protestors condemning his policies and regime.
Top that off with the Saudi youth with no purpose in life due to the fact they have lots of money, are for the majority well educated, and simply bored are the basic recruits for the Muslim Brotherhood and leaders of terroristic values-ie: Osama, and you have a bad pot brewing in the radical islamist world.
Blown really needs to factor in a little history and unbiased current event reporting to his freethinking diet.
Question Blown- What's worse a Zionist or an Islamic Extremist wanting to destroy the free world?
It seems you may have to choose........
I need history? please.

[Old Texan]

I need history? please.
Real history, like what actually happened.
What about the question? Question Blown- What's worse a Zionist or an Islamic Extremist wanting to destroy the free world?

[eliminatedsprinter]

So you are saying that those conditions lead to the rise of Hitler?
Yes, to the extent that without those conditions he would have never gained power. Hitler was able to exploit those conditions and use them as an asset in his rise to power. As did other tyrants like Mussilini and Franco.
A devestating war (WWI)
A punitive and poorly thought out treaty (Versailles)
And the above mentioned policies of the Western Powers definatly created an environment that tyrants especially Hitler were able to exploit.

[Old Texan]

Yes, to the extent that without those conditions he would have never gained power. Hitler was able to exploit those conditions and use them as an asset in his rise to power. As did other tyrants like Mussilini and Franco.
A devestating war (WWI)
A punitive and poorly thought out treaty (Versailles)
And the above mentioned policies of the Western Powers definatly created an environment that tyrants especially Hitler were able to exploit.
Examples of "Real" history.
Your version Blown??????

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the bottom line Blown.
Talking to and not stopping that little nutjob and the crazy mullahs he works for is, in fact helping him, at this particular time in history.