Too many voices are comparing the diplomacy used against Ahmadinejad's Iran trying to acquire nukes, with Chamberlain's conciliative approach right before WWII. And Ahmadinejad has got none of Hitler's finesse, none of his lying.

Is this actually the wrong way to go? Should the US, Europe, and other Western forces do something before it's too late?

So there really are NO gays in Iran?

The guy's a lying scumbag. Iraq shouldn't have been invaded (though I'm happy Saddam is out of power) in the manner it was.

I'm not saying the people there aren't being oppressed, and I'm not saying his government isn't an awful one.

I just can't help feeling that it's wrong to waltz in with size 15 boots and change everyone else's thinking to your liking. If a country really wants democracy and fair treatment, it'll change for itself. Maybe it'll take a while and be rather painful (perhaps less painful than an invasion?) but the change will have been from WITHIN as opposed from the outside.

Pretty much this. As tired as I am of people like IwannaJihad, we can't change a country like that, just as Iraq is showing us. He can be dealt with in other ways and as loony as he is, I doubt he, just like Kim Jong Il, will try anything stupid.

The U.S. can't afford to invade another country . . . and it can't even afford to continue invasion of Iraq.

Should they invade Iran, no. War is never a good option and should only be used as a last resort.

Maybe with the consent of the UN and a giant coalition with other countries, but you can see how likely that would be

We know the UN are a bunch of pussies, so we should pull the troops doing nothing out of Japan/Germany/etc. and put them to work. Iran needs to be dealt with before they nuke Israel and start World War III. This isn't like Iraq, where we were speculating: Theirs is a president who openly admits to hating Israel and wanting nuclear power.

Are you just bullshitting as usual in your stupid absolutist tone or do you honestly believe that? I doubt they would or could start a world war, and that them having a nuclear program would be anything more than a deterent to Israel's or what they see as the US circling around them with our large presence in Afghanistan & Iraq.

For them to nuke Israel would cause severe damage to Palestine in the process and would destroy all good will with the other countries in the middle east they have been gaining lots of popularity with since the Iraq War. Like Brazil and like China they view themselves as the heir apparent top force in their region (the middle east) due to their size, despite all of Ahmadinejad's stupid populism even he wouldn't do that.

Doing so would also give legitimacy to a real Jewish Victim complex (as opposed to the made up holocaust that is a big part of his rhetoric), that most middle easterns view as driving force for all political matters important to Israel. Thats the last thing he would do.

Frankly our armed forces are stretched thin. If we pull our forces from other countries that basically is pissing on our NATO agreements with them and is not good diplomacy. Granted we are only there for outdated Cold War reasons and I think it is waste of American money to be in some of these places, but snapping up all our forces from some of these areas all at won't stand well with our allies. Alot of countries in question use us to fill their holes in national security, so they don't have to spend money on military expenditures and can pump it into their economy and social programs. Thats a whole other topic for another time.


There are blocs of power in the UN who are opposed to us starting a new war anyways (China, Russia, "Bolivarian" Venezuela/Ecuador/Bolivia, etc.) and old members of "the coalition of the willing" who didn't see any good dividends come from their involvement in Iraq (most of them redon't deserve any anyways.) We're burning bridges with allies like Pakistan over ideological reasons, paying lip service to the issues in the Sudan and Myanmar yet not really doing anything to solve them, and ignoring Afghanistan as the Taliban has come back from extinction and started to gain power and influence through out the country again.

We also got alot of shit to worry about at home too, the bubble bursting on home market is starting to hit the economy hard and is going to get much worse before it gets better.

Iran would attack Israel, we would attack Iran, and then everybody jumps in. Iran feels threatened by us, because they provoked us, and now know that we mean business.



Wrong. Everyone in the region hates Israel. All of that hate isn't building up to fizzle out; it is building up to explode. 6 day war: Nuclear edition, anyone?



I agree with you 100% here. However, we're already fucked on diplomacy, and so-the-fuck-what if we leave holes in national defense of our allies. Maybe that will teach them that radical Islam is a threat, and they'll support us again.



Pakistan is a shitty ally to have: The only person who likes us is their Prime Minister, and he's suspended the constitution to make himself a brutal dictator. Also, Bush has no reason to care about Sudan or Myanmar. By the way, I thought it was "Burma" now.

-We didn't complain about the economy when entering WWII.

In conclusion, I feel like we could only afford one major war this decade, and we wasted it on Iraq. I HATE war, but there are legitimate reasons for aggression against Iran.

Uh fucking shit usurper, you don't know anything about the Middle East, do you? You even missed the point with Myanmar and Sudan. Youre viewing this situation through the lense of someone who plays too much Halo and watches too much Fox News and the Mclaughlin Group. I'm not going to discuss this with you unless you stop trolling and take it somewhat seriously. I think you can at least do that for the intellectual discussion board. I do.

And its the other way around. The country was called Burma until the junta took over and eventually changed their country's name to Myanmar (1989). The U.S. (as well as the U.K - i think going of BBC and their use of the country's name) does not acknowledge Myanmar, but only Burma. On the other hand, the UN acknowledges Myanmar as Myanmar.

We should be more worried about North Korea considering they have the 5th largest military in the world, almost double of Iran's. Though I guess it could be said that progress is being made in that respect (ie dismantling of their nuclear power plant and US fast food getting there). Source (though I also read something along those lines (NK having a larger army than Iran).

Statement #1: Usurper doesn't know anything about the Middle East.
Current status: False.

Statement #2: Usurper views the lens of someone who watches FOX and plays too much Halo
Current status: False AND stupid. Usurper only occasionally watches FOX for entertainment purposes. Also, Usurper does not own Halo.

Statement #3: SEP won't discuss or Usurper's arguments. Usurper is trolling.
Current status: Idiotic. SEP refuses to take anything seriously, since Usurper disagrees with him.



Yeah. I just did a speech on North Korea in class. I got an A.

WTF do gays have to do with it? He's not lying about building nuclear facilities. He's not lying about his hatred of Israel.



It's true that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded, but note the irony - Iraq was alleged to have WMDs. Alleged. They probably didn't, and most everyone knew that (I know that hindsight is always 20/20, but bear with me for the sake of argument). Iran is actively and openly (as much as such things can be) developing nuclear facilities, whence the road to WMDs is practically minuscle. They are much more organized, much more powerful, and Ahmadinejad and his supporters are just as crazy as Saddam was.
And if you're talking about oppression - well, between the Muslim countries, Iran is rather lenient on these grounds. The mere fact that several ayatollahs have been heard criticizing Ahmadinejad, the fact that they knew they could do such a thing and stay safe, means that at least freedom of speech is somewhat present. Also, that craphole of a monkey would never have been able to seize power if he had to be a dictator.




Both of you are right, but completely miss the point. This isn't about trying to change a Muslim country from what said country is today into a western democracy. Attempts have pretty much shown that democracy fails almost everywhere eastern than Turkey (cf. Russia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, China...), and even anywhere in the world - where it wasn't inspired from within, as Akuma puts it. Democracy should be introduced AFTER the people have been liberated in mind and spirit - the French revolution, for instance, was about the French people's will to freedom and equality, not about any outside force shaping their regime for them.

As to whether he'll try anything stupid - the answer is, probably yes. Why? Ahmadinejad, or any other Iranian leader, would never nuke somewhere out of the blue, and not even in response to provocation. The burning issue is - what they're going to do with them other than use them outright.

I'm talking about selling it, to North Korea, to the Hezbollah, to the Taliban. They would mind bombing Tel Aviv with a nuke, because that would mean bombing Jaffa and perhaps Jerusalem (and me included between those two), but do you think they would mind blowing up, say, Chicago? Or easier yet - Hawaii?



That's the question. Isn't it time for a last resort?

Once again Usurper you've said a whole lot of nothing on the subject as usual and have fallen into third person for some weird (and dumb) reason

If you were knowledgeable on the subject, you wouldn't fall back on jingoism and ignorant remarks about extremism (a shift in power in the region from sunni islam to shia islam influence is not a matter of extremism) and how Israel has no allies in the region (Turkey isn't a islamic middle eastern country?)

Some questions for you to see if you are actually taking this seriously or can think critically on this issue:

If Iran were to use a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel, that would certainly spill over into regions currently occupied by Palestine and leave areas that Palestinians lay claim to uninhabitable. This also would likely devastate Jerusalem, a holy site of Islam.

What leads you to believe they would do that? When have they ever used a pre-emptive strike as a modern nation? As a theocratic government, why would they damage a holy site of islam? Why would they destroy all good will with other Arabic countries with devastation to lands they claim? And their rhetoric for that matter?

For everything everyone has to say about Ahmadinejad, you have to keep in mind that he isn't the main leader of Iran. Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is.

First of all, when the fuck was I talking about sunnis and shias? Even if I was, there is a huge difference between them: research which ones we recently gave arms to. As for Turkey, what are they gong to do?



Bits of Palestine here and there (I doubt Jerusalem will be damaged in the midst) are just collateral damage to a people who want to wipe Zionist Jews off the map. As for their rhetoric, we know their extremist rhetoric is nonsensical. Do you really want me to predict what excuse they'll make for intentions they've already indicated?



Ali Khamenei isn't the one facilitating our mutual hostility, is he?

not when they are four to eight years away from a nuclear device.

Also on the question about That one dude wanting to wipe the Israel of the face of the planet. Look into an analysis on what he actually said, it is interesting. Also who cares what the prime Minister dude said, he's not in control of the military. That dude is the main with the power. Now the PM has more power than that position did before, but still the point remains.

red herring after red herring, who taught you how to debate? I'm done with this with you. Rise above the persona you have created on this site for yourself for once.



Thats just modern domino theory ala terrorism. The Taliban hates Iran and vice versa. Qods Force helped out the northern alliance during October 2001. North Korea is slowly (at a glacial pace) normalizing relations with South Korea (the Korean war is officially over , and in doing so South Korea is going to keep them fed. Their biggest export is crystal meth, not manufactured weaponry.

[quote name='Scorched Earth Policy' date='Nov 10 2007, 01:37 AM' post='118971']
Once again Usurper you've said a whole lot of nothing on the subject as usual and have fallen into third person for some weird (and dumb) reason

If you were knowledgeable on the subject, you wouldn't fall back on jingoism and ignorant remarks about extremism (a shift in power in the region from sunni islam to shia islam influence is not a matter of extremism) and how Israel has no allies in the region (Turkey isn't a islamic middle eastern country?)
[/quote]

First of all, I don't see the reason for these ad hominem attacks on Usurper.
That said, what the hell does Turkey have to do with Israel? Do you think they would even consider helping us in a struggle? They might, if they're kind, stay out of it.

[quote]
Some questions for you to see if you are actually taking this seriously or can think critically on this issue:

If Iran were to use a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel, that would certainly spill over into regions currently occupied by Palestine and leave areas that Palestinians lay claim to uninhabitable. This also would likely devastate Jerusalem, a holy site of Islam.

What leads you to believe they would do that? When have they ever used a pre-emptive strike as a modern nation? As a theocratic government, why would they damage a holy site of islam? Why would they destroy all good will with other Arabic countries with devastation to lands they claim? And their rhetoric for that matter?
[/quote]

Up until now, Iran was not very outspoken against Israel.

Regarding Jerusalem. All they need is an exact enough missile, and a small enough bomb. Neither of these is out of range for Iran.

For everything everyone has to say about Ahmadinejad, you have to keep in mind that he isn't the main leader of Iran. Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is.
[/quote]


[quote name='Master Bob' date='Nov 10 2007, 08:19 AM' post='119069']
not when they are four to eight years away from a nuclear device.

Also on the question about That one dude wanting to wipe the Israel of the face of the planet. Look into an analysis on what he actually said, it is interesting. Also who cares what the prime Minister dude said, he's not in control of the military. That dude is the main with the power. Now the PM has more power than that position did before, but still the point remains.
[/quote]

4-8 years - Where's that statistic from? Can you provide a link (to that and to said analysis)?

I read it on dig, I can't find the link. But I did find this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071028/wl_mi...rpoliticsiaeaus

You did it first. I just try to take your nonsense seriously.



But that doesn't stop them from uniting against a common enemy, does it? Kind of like in superhero comics, when the bad guys team up with the good guys to fight an even bigger bad guy.

Are we talking real life or graphic novels here?

In real life, there's always an incentive to defect and I would suggest you brush up on your game theory. For some prime examples I would look at the failure of opec to collude, the USSR and Germany in WW2, Portugal and Japan in WW2, Russia and the US during the cold war (who should have both practiced mutual disarmament and focused on other threats but didn't), and so on and so forth.

Usurper, my thing with you is that you know how to spin a good yarn, and are generally a good speaker, but that you talk about things you should leave to those who are actually knowledgable about. Fancy rhetoric will never cover up for a lack of facts, at least on the internet. I'm sure that in real life you can talk your way around most everything, but in real life most people don't have instant access to google with a quick ctrl-n.

In this case, I don't know as much as SEP about US-Iran relations or about recent developments in the middle east, so I won't talk about them. My only contribution is that it's easier to destroy an opponent if there is no room to sympathize from outside parties. That, I feel, was the biggest mistake we made with Iraq: we didn't allow Saddam to dig himself a big enough hole, and as a result we ended up with widespread resentment from all around the world.

Turkey has very little to do with this, I was just making the point that the country isn't universally hated in the region. They are probably Israel's biggest trade partner. I doubt they would help Israel either. Turkey has their own issues as they are also a European nation and their main focus is trying to fix their pseudo democracy so they are eligible to get into the EU.

Fuck If Israel were wiped off the map alot of these middle eastern countries would lose their biggest boogey man. With Israel gone there would be no need for oppression in the guise of built up military to protect the masses from future Israeli excursions in the Sinai and Golan Heights, control of state media's to keep Israeli propaganda out, etc. They would still have the US, but their biggest complaint against US has always been our endearing support for Israel in face of their oppression of Palestine.


If you consider how islam plays into all of this; Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are and stand to lose more influence and power among their people in the region at the expense of Iran's. Ahmadinejad is more popular for all his rhetoric in these countries than the Saud family, King Abdullah, or Mubarak ever were or will be.

And as for Iran being very outspoken on Israel, you have to also take into consideration that Ahmadinejad is the first Iranian President to be voted in without majority parliamentary support, and he had most of his cabinet selections rejected by them, which makes him the most weak kneed president in revolutionary Iran's history. His party lost ground in municipal elections a year ago, he is drumming up support.

And Jaime, no attacks will ever be made to stop it. Israel would have already done so if they could have. They did it to two reactors Saddam had established in Iraq in the 80s. They wisely put the sites beneath the Alborz mountain range. Not even America's biggest bunker buster could get to them. It would take a nuclear assault to get to them.

I would like to say that in WW2, stronger nationalism than ever before prevented several would-be alliances. As for the cold war, you have to understand that USA and the USSR were battling to see who could reign supreme. Between two vastly different ideologies, either side felt as if the future of the world were at stake. And besides mutual disarmament, what else was there to focus on, really?



I had my ass kicked around enough in Economic History to know that I rely heavily on rhetoric. You are half right. In real life, I use words to get just about anything I want. However, I am more than able to present sources on demand, just as I have to in my college writing. Do you see the irony in suggesting that I leave certain topics to the "knowledgeable" (Remember the time you tried to tell me the average salaries in a company I worked for?), on a board with few expertise, in a media where information is apparently available at the touch of "ctrl-n"? If, for some reason a Google search is all one needs for ID, I am at level ground for information, with superior rhetoric, which is actually what gets you somewhere in life.



However, I'm not exactly sure how much more of a hole Saddam could have done. I believe he gained sympathy when we justified our military strikes on lies. And if we had wanted to get him on his other cruelties, we were a few years late, with our timing making the invasion look arbitrary.

Oh another reason why the U.S. shouldn't go to war with iran . . . we can't afford it. In fact we can't even afford the current engagement in Iraq.

Technically, we couldn't afford WWII, either. War with Iran wouldn't really put us in the poorhouse.

Except that winning WW2 made us an economic superpower with leverage against defeated nations, and 'winning' a war against Iraq or Iran won't net us a trillion dollar refund.

How many economists predicted that? As far as I know, people were shouting doomsday from mountaintops.

Are you trying to make some sort of point here?

Here are the options for WW2:
Win, become economic superpower
Lose, become subordinate of Axis countries
or some other intermediate option.

Given probabilities, you can compute some sort of expected value for this matrix of plays.

The difference between WW2 and Iraq/Iran is that there is no possibility of a positive expected value for a war on either of those countries. No possible way that you can make money by spending trillions to at best install a puppet government. WW2 was life or death, riches or stifling poverty, freedom or slavery, and Iraq/iran is wasting money or wasting money. No matter how much oil you get.

If you project the price of oil tripling in the next 20 years (Considering we're around the oil peak, and we're intentionally disrupting the region to keep prices high), it could be money well spent. Iran has more oil than Iraq, which we're also going to pretty much own next decade.

This is just completely untrue and I don't know why you're pursuing this line of thought. We're disrupting the region to keep prices high? What the fuck do WE have to gain from keeping prices high? How the fuck do you 'keep prices high' anyway? Where's the economic explanation for that from the demand side? We're going to 'pretty much own' the oil in Iran next decade? You are firmly in conspiracy theory territory and this has nothing to do with economics, let alone the real world. If we just throw out the opportunity costs (such as all of the opportunities of lost life, including some of the most highly educated soldiers and agents in the world, opportunities of the brain damaged and crippled, money wasted on the failed governance of iraq-- nearly $4,000 per iraqi just in 2006!), pretend those don't exist (though they obviously do), we will already have spent 1.3 trillion in iraq by 2008. In comparison, we spent 8.2% of 1.6 trillion on oil in 2006. Pursuing a war in Iran wouldn't put oil in our pocket, unless:

1. opec decided not to care about one of its prime members
2. the world decided not to care that the united states was openly robbing another country
3. iran's citizens decided not to care that their country was being robbed
4. the united nations decided not to care that the us was openly robbing another country
and 5. the united states openly robbed another country!

what the hell do you think is going to happen? The us is going to force iran into a crude oil trade agreement at a fixed price of 0? We already spend more per year on the war in Iraq than on oil, and you have the gall to suggest that spending even more might dig us out of this multi-trillion dollar hole?

The war on Iraq is not economically sound, and a war on Iran will not be either, unless it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that without our intervention they would nuke the shit out of us or something, and every other country in the world hated us enough to let it happen unless we actually did something about it, the latter of which is entirely possible at this point.

The whole point is that the united states should not just gamble away taxpayers money without there being a positive expected value from the risk taken. What the fuck is the likelihood that Iran goes 'hey guys now that you beat the shit out of us take all of our oil, and don't worry the entire world is just going to pretend this never happened so don't feel bad about robbing us blind and don't worry none of the muslims in this region are going to be pissed off'

Clearly, this is no WW2.

Also, to actually look at the horrible, unfounded reasons you provide in your post, if a price being near its peak means that it will probably triple in the next 20 years, you just may have a future as a stockbroker, and if 'disrupting a region' means prices are going to be high doesn't that mean that once we leave the region prices will go back down? Or are we supposed to stay in war in the middle east for the next 20 years, spending more money per year than we do on oil anyway, NOT that this is what happens in real life anyway or that it's in any way economically sound.

Also we've killed like 80,000 iraqi civilians. what the hell

I don't know how many Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of U.S. actions, but I do know that over one million Iraqis have died as a result of this confilct.

Yeah... as far as civilians go, it's about 80,000 directly reported in the media and confirmed, and then you get all of those other studies, the largest one being Lancet which as of 2006 estimates around 600,000 civilians dead (though a 95% confidence interval isn't really that great given the distribution of queries, and it could be anywhere from 300,000 to 900,000).

Man I don't even want to think about it anymore. Pointless war is bad you guys. 1 in 26 iraqis died on the way to being the second most unstable country in the world after sudan.

YOU don't have anything to gain. Ever hear of the war on the middle class?



Large corporations who buy petroleum products in wholesale get that shit for cheap. You could be paying $10 a gallon while they only pay $3, because without YOU filling up your Escalade, economies of scale (*cough* oil *cough*) won't have to charge you up the ass for basic necessities. You won't be driving anymore, but you'll have food on the table. That's how it works on the demand side.



Seeing as how the government skirts health benefits for veterans, opportunity cost of dead/wounded soldiers (You even forgot to include the average of $12,000 each spent on their public education as children) is moot.



The only inevitability out of those is #3. But we already know how to deal with that.



Read above.



The reason it's not economically sound is because it's turning into a war to win over hearts and minds filled with ire. If we decimated them and took their oil, this would be pretty much over.

As for the rest, you're obviously anti-war. But stick to the ways of a true economist, as you apparently aspire to be, and look at the cold, hard facts for once.

Yes, and it's fake and irrelevant.



Excess demand doesn't lead to lower prices, what the hell? Neither corporations nor citizens have monopsony power.
'economies of scale won't have to charge you up the ass for basic necessities'... I don't even understand what this sentence means. First of all, economies don't charge people. Second, the markets for food and oil are unrelated, unless you mean corn oil and vegetable oil. Third, there's a untapped producer surplus lost from not selling to everyday citizens. I don't know what kind of facts you're looking at but I get the sense that they're in your head.



Sunk cost fallacy, and I 'even' forgot to include the $12,000 spent on their public education? I didn't include ANY numbers except for the ones where we IGNORE all of those extra costs! Also, health programs for veterans are better done than medicare and any other government-sponsored health program so the government is doing a relatively good job there, not that that is even relevant.


All I have to say is: the entire world is not going to care that we are apparently reverting to the middle ages of plundering and pillaging? Decimating them and taking their oil? Does this sound like Germany taking the Sudetenland to anyone?



What the fuck are you talking about? No, seriously. What the fuck are you talking about? I'm okay with wars that make sense, and your facts are less real than vanilla ice. real talk.

Yes, let's decimate iran and take their oil, then decimate germany and steal their engineers, go into the netherlands and grab some cheese, go into japan and take some cell phones, go into sweden and steal their metal bands... wait, what the fuck are you even talking about?

I could correct the last post with tidbits I learned from college economics (Economies don't charge you themselves: DUH), but I'm just fucking with you in the last couple posts, Bolt. You get sooo riled up when it comes to economics.

Look man, we know you're full of shit most of the time but could you at least keep your pr/advertising/marketing 'everybody's dumb and i'll prove it by talking nonsense and watching people listen' schtick to the lounge? Some people want to be able to hear over the noise and a game forum isn't necessarily the best place to do it but why shit it up even more?

You can barely hold your own against my devil's advocate.

In any case, consider this: Everyone here is liberal, and disagreements are hard to come by. You practically had a stroke when I cited basic economics.

You're not just stupid, you're the worst kind of stupid. You know nothing and think you know everything.

Read this.

In communication, we call that concept "Self-serving bias". Standardized tests don't mean shit, but I still have a strong tendency to score extremely high. 29 on my ACT, for example.

That being said, think about the reasons you call me stupid, and whether or not you are in any position to make such a judgment. That alone reeks of an arrogance I would never emulate while serious.

Calling you stupid reeks of arrogance? You think the whole world is stupid and hope to exploit the general population through LCD marketing and advertisements, unless your pms to me were all lies too.

And you think 29 on your act is high? I mean I don't think standardized tests mean shit either, but I got 36 on my act without any review and 2340 on my sats...

The reason why I call you stupid is that you're acting extremely stupid. End of story. You have nothing intelligent to add to this thread and yet you continue to talk. There are things you know about, like almost hooking up with slutty asian girls, but this topic doesn't happen to be one of them. Why do you have to open your mouth? No one's going to give you extra credit for speaking up in class here.

Because he has nothing Bolt, so he dances around the questions and changes the topic, showing how painfully ignorant he is about the topic at hand. When you are comic books as a counter point in discussion of geo-political matters, you obviously have no business arguing this matter.

There's more backpedalling going on here than in a SecretAgent Bob topic, jesus

The reason I don't have much is because there is little to no evidence to support invading Iran. The only reason I pretend otherwise is so we can have some lively discussion. Now, if I seriously believed it, that would be one thing, but that isn't the case here. The case is that Bolt is on so high of a horse, he becomes borderline emotional.

But this is leading to my next topic in ID: Are people stupid?

But that's for tomorrow.

Won't anyone be enjoying turkey today? :-/

There's a difference between PR and Advertising. At this point, I'm going to be different from you, and not call you stupid when I know something you don't.



Since I didn't study, and got put in the top 5% of the nation, yes that is high. But if you somehow got the highest score possible, which seems ludicrous when posted on 404, then that's kickass.



Why do I have to open my mouth? That's the best question you've asked, and I've explained it before.

It isn't top 5% of the nation, it's top 5% of the people taking the ACTs, and considering that the ACTs are fully subsidized and mandatory for people in poorly performing districts, like florida and the many other southeast states, it doesn't fucking matter one iota.

It's like me bragging about getting a 5 on AP Calculus BC when I hadn't taken the course. It's a perfect score, yes, but it doesn't matter because I didn't even know any Calculus 3 material and only got a perfect because lots of kids in poorly performing districts got their exam fees waived, shifting the distribution of performance down.

I don't know the difference between PR and advertising? They're both connected to communicating with the public, albeit with different means, right? How the fuck can you get smug knowing a 'difference' as far as a completely subjective liberal art with no basis in science except for loosely connected statistics is concerned? It's like being able to distinguish between baroque and the rococo. That's pretty neat, but nobody actually gives a fuck and it's all made up subjective artistic individualized shit that's only legitimized through its inclusion in expensive textbooks anyway.

So Iran . . . yeah that's what this topic is about . . .

take the Bolt VS Usurper someplace else

No, no, no.

He's on a mission to prove that I'm stupid.

Have that many people died in Iraq? Damn. I had no fucking clue.

Are we carpet bombing or something? I mean our losses are so much lower than those figures.

Well there's a report that says Iran has stopped nuclear activity since '03 but Israel denies that report. Interesting.

"This report flies in the face of all the posturing we've done for the past 4 years"

"Of course we're going to immediately admit that we're immeasurably huge MORONS. How could we possibly deny this report?"

They haven't stopped nuclear activity; they've only stopped active nuclear weapon development. All this means is that the US's spies only infiltrated the level of military that is doing the energy research. How many times in TV shows they tell people that a program was "canceled" only to have it moved further underground?