45 coaches online • Server time: 12:51
* * * Did you know? Up until now, 1479782 players have died on the pitch.
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Secret League Americ...goto Post DOTP Season 4goto Post Skittles' Centu...
PainState
Last seen 41 weeks ago
Overall
Star
Overall
Record
26/9/28
Win Percentage
48%
Archive

2023

2023-02-04 17:58:02
rating 4.8

2022

2022-08-08 14:48:44
rating 5.5
2022-07-19 17:33:33
rating 6
2022-07-18 05:27:04
rating 2.2
2022-05-20 18:50:43
rating 4
2022-05-12 01:12:32
rating 4.3
2022-04-21 23:50:58
rating 3.7
2022-04-12 22:40:20
rating 6
2022-04-05 23:20:47
rating 3.9
2022-03-10 16:27:01
rating 4.9

2020

2020-05-03 07:34:33
rating 6

2017

2017-05-28 18:09:37
rating 2.7
2017-05-02 00:58:51
rating 5.6
2017-03-28 17:04:43
rating 6
2017-02-15 21:05:08
rating 1.6

2016

2016-12-22 16:53:44
rating 2.6
2016-11-28 16:13:58
rating 5.1
2016-11-23 00:10:48
rating 3.3
2016-10-13 21:15:04
rating 5.7
2016-09-29 15:51:47
rating 5.2
2016-09-16 20:14:49
rating 6
2016-09-14 17:00:29
rating 6
2016-09-14 16:01:17
rating 3.9
2016-07-23 16:32:20
rating 5.3
2016-07-19 17:47:59
rating 5
2016-06-25 21:04:03
rating 4.3
2016-06-12 21:36:21
rating 4.8
2016-06-06 22:51:10
rating 2.5
2016-06-05 19:25:46
rating 5.4
2016-05-26 22:54:20
rating 2.6
2016-04-29 15:48:57
rating 4.3
2016-04-19 19:13:19
rating 4.8
2016-04-13 21:04:41
rating 3.8
2016-04-10 19:33:28
rating 5.4
2016-03-21 14:09:51
rating 5.3
2016-03-02 03:03:07
rating 4.6
2016-02-24 16:25:09
rating 4.1
2016-02-19 03:53:14
rating 3.2
2016-02-12 20:41:29
rating 5.2
2016-01-30 16:28:26
rating 5.8
2016-01-23 17:47:37
rating 4.3

2015

2015-12-18 00:53:14
rating 4.8
2015-12-11 21:12:40
rating 5.3
2015-11-30 23:54:15
rating 2.3
2015-11-25 03:08:28
rating 2.5
2015-11-20 01:03:50
rating 2.3
2015-11-16 21:05:36
rating 3
2015-10-29 14:36:18
rating 5.5
2015-10-14 21:15:35
rating 5.3
2015-08-23 19:23:18
rating 4.1
2015-07-21 00:13:41
rating 2.1
2015-07-19 00:56:17
rating 4.8
2015-07-06 22:39:32
rating 4.5
2015-05-06 23:26:03
rating 2.4
2015-05-06 00:56:28
rating 5
2015-04-23 17:13:52
rating 5.5
2015-04-20 16:57:01
rating 3.1
2015-04-03 19:07:36
rating 2.5
2015-04-02 16:31:57
rating 6
2015-03-26 21:21:58
rating 2.5
2015-03-19 21:41:15
rating 3.8
2015-03-15 21:45:57
rating 6
2015-03-06 20:59:52
rating 5.4

2014

2014-12-12 17:09:54
rating 4.6
2014-12-11 17:13:23
rating 5.9
2014-11-05 16:46:44
rating 6
2014-10-30 14:34:43
rating 4.8
2014-10-17 15:13:05
rating 4.7
2014-10-07 16:06:14
rating 2.9
2014-09-16 18:24:00
rating 5.4
2014-09-11 16:30:01
rating 5
2014-08-27 17:17:00
rating 5.7
2014-08-25 23:30:37
rating 5.2
2014-08-10 03:48:36
rating 4.1
2014-08-10 00:33:36
rating 4.2
2014-08-08 00:16:11
rating 5.1
2014-06-17 06:00:55
rating 5.5
2014-06-05 18:19:07
rating 4.1
2014-06-05 16:53:58
rating 2.1
2014-04-25 15:02:03
rating 2.9
2014-04-18 18:03:51
rating 4.2
2014-03-21 18:29:03
rating 4.8
2014-03-11 20:24:24
rating 2.3
2014-03-05 16:25:41
rating 5.3
2014-03-05 06:17:06
rating 5.6
2014-02-27 20:09:02
rating 5.1
2014-02-06 19:45:08
rating 5.5
2014-01-30 19:25:13
rating 4.7

2013

2013-12-18 16:20:00
rating 6
2013-12-11 15:43:36
rating 6
2013-12-10 17:03:49
rating 5.3
2013-12-09 18:50:05
rating 5.4
2013-11-16 17:48:07
rating 5.1
2013-10-25 18:17:35
rating 4.8
2013-10-16 15:43:29
rating 5.8
2013-10-01 16:50:07
rating 5.4
2013-09-19 16:49:51
rating 5.1
2013-09-18 18:07:40
rating 5.8
2013-09-13 17:03:19
rating 5.3
2013-09-09 18:58:03
rating 2.6
2013-09-06 17:48:32
rating 2.2
2013-09-05 16:20:46
rating 4.4
2013-08-29 20:32:15
rating 3.5
2013-08-26 16:11:52
rating 3.5
2013-08-12 16:31:06
rating 3.8
2013-08-07 19:39:06
rating 3.3
2013-08-03 17:10:28
rating 5.5
2013-07-08 21:58:44
rating 4.2
2013-05-29 18:40:27
rating 5.6
2013-05-13 17:59:50
rating 4.4
2013-05-04 20:14:42
rating 4.2
2013-04-23 17:03:53
rating 5.1
2013-04-12 16:43:04
rating 3.3
2013-04-08 06:26:20
rating 5.2
2013-04-05 19:43:32
rating 3.9
2013-03-25 14:48:52
rating 5.2
2013-03-20 18:56:34
rating 5.7
2013-02-20 19:19:11
rating 4.9
2013-02-20 18:08:49
rating 3.6
2013-02-16 16:11:07
rating 5.8
2013-02-06 16:50:29
rating 4.3

2012

2012-12-15 15:35:45
rating 5.3
2012-12-11 23:00:35
rating 5.4
2012-11-19 02:56:21
rating 5
2012-11-17 17:31:19
rating 3.3
2012-11-08 23:36:04
rating 3.1
2012-11-07 15:42:42
rating 5.4
2012-10-18 01:29:13
rating 3.7
2012-09-08 22:40:56
rating 4.8
2012-08-24 17:05:09
rating 4.2
2012-08-12 20:41:18
rating 2.9
2012-08-11 23:24:30
rating 5.3
2012-08-02 15:59:56
rating 4.2
2012-08-02 00:29:55
rating 5.1
2012-07-05 06:04:09
rating 1.6
2012-07-04 17:50:14
rating 3.7
2012-06-26 22:25:55
rating 1.9
2012-06-09 17:06:59
rating 5.1
2012-06-07 00:01:37
rating 5.4
2012-06-02 18:35:02
rating 5
2012-05-29 20:37:34
rating 4.5
2012-05-22 21:24:03
rating 4.5
2012-05-10 15:39:05
rating 2.4
2012-05-04 15:49:15
rating 4.4
2012-04-17 15:32:49
rating 5.1
2012-03-28 22:49:58
rating 4.7
2012-03-26 20:18:48
rating 2.5
2012-03-12 15:12:42
rating 5.7
2012-02-28 19:36:19
rating 5.4
2012-02-23 22:20:58
rating 3.4
2012-02-22 17:02:26
rating 2.5
2012-02-06 15:15:29
rating 3.1
2012-01-09 19:33:12
rating 3.6

2011

2011-12-15 07:22:41
rating 4.1
2011-12-06 22:58:53
rating 4.6
2011-11-22 00:11:22
rating 4
2011-11-21 22:32:19
rating 4.7
2011-10-21 22:05:02
rating 4.6
2011-10-15 23:32:24
rating 5.5
2011-08-08 21:15:17
rating 5.3
2011-07-05 15:49:10
rating 5.2
2011-04-07 02:11:14
rating 5.4
2011-03-02 20:33:08
rating 3.1
2011-02-28 20:44:52
rating 4
2011-02-13 23:33:50
rating 3.8
2011-01-18 22:15:58
rating 4.9

2010

2010-12-07 05:52:30
rating 3.4
2010-12-04 03:06:44
rating 3.4
2010-09-15 23:52:41
rating 4.6
2010-04-05 16:49:30
rating 5
2010-02-19 19:01:50
rating 3.7
2010-01-13 17:52:07
rating 3.7

2009

2009-12-23 21:38:22
rating 3.1
2009-12-12 23:22:04
rating 2.7
2009-12-10 17:38:57
rating 2.2
2009-11-21 19:30:00
rating 4.2
2009-10-13 19:32:48
rating 4
2009-09-02 20:02:22
rating 3.8
2009-08-21 23:32:57
rating 2.4
2009-08-19 17:02:27
rating 3.5
2009-07-28 19:09:03
rating 3.3
2009-05-20 17:38:32
rating 2.7
2009-05-14 20:49:15
rating 4.1
2009-05-12 18:14:16
rating 3.7
2009-05-02 06:17:51
rating 3.6
2009-04-03 22:17:01
rating 4.4
2009-03-18 17:39:30
rating 2.6
2009-02-06 19:16:08
rating 4.1
2009-01-09 16:39:08
rating 3

2008

2008-11-16 00:22:06
rating 3.2
2008-10-01 21:48:08
rating 3.8
2008-09-12 23:38:55
rating 4
2008-09-04 16:08:06
rating 4.3
2008-08-20 18:06:02
rating 4
2008-08-15 17:13:26
rating 3.5
2008-05-27 22:21:53
rating 3.3
2008-02-22 23:07:13
rating 3.3
2008-01-28 16:53:20
rating 4.2

2007

2007-11-21 17:50:42
rating 2.4
2007-10-19 22:11:31
rating 3.1
2015-04-03 19:07:36
38 votes, rating 2.5
World Peace has been achieved
According to the President of the United State he has just achieved global world peace by letting Iran have nuclear weapons.


Is it just me or does this make no sense. Nuclear proliferation is the path to global world peace?

BTW: Sec. of State John Kerry just might get the Nobel Prize for PEACE by handing over nukes. INSANITY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!!!
Rate this entry
Comments
Posted by AegisTheHyena on 2015-04-03 19:14:29
Cue the running around with our heads cut off, when "What, you expected us to hold our end of the deal? We blow YOU up now." in 3... 2...

Nuffle help us all... *rolls a 1, again* "... ... ... ..."
Posted by vaclav on 2015-04-03 19:15:46
It doesnt matter anyway. Putin will take care of u before Iran...
Posted by monk12 on 2015-04-03 19:23:11
"Peace in our time"
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-03 19:26:30
No....not quite. Iran have always had nuclear weapons. A deal has been brokered that Iran will have an open policy on what nuclear power they have.

Living out that way. The word is, nobody is quite sure what actually is/was the problem with Iran. Probably they never sold off enough oil to the west. Iran is the main hold of one particular sect of Islam. This form of Islam is probably the most aligned to western views.

Iran were the first to realise the problems surrounding Iraq, and their reward was being labeled the bad guys..........only for America to invade 7 years later.

However, because of this, they are not so popular with the Gulf States....who have the oil and the power to persuade western views. From what I have been told, Iran have had a bit of a rough deal and good relations with the west would benefit both areas.

I'm no expert, but I'd say let that boulder roll. Iran aren't the bad guys.
Posted by Beerox on 2015-04-03 20:13:27
Rated 6 so I can watch fumbblers piss on each other.
Posted by BillBrasky on 2015-04-03 20:24:39
I think it's all smoke & mirrors. Regardless of any agreement, Iran is going to do whatever they want anyway. And to be fair, in the same situation wouldn't most countries do the same thing?

Also, we can't exactly have a zombie apocalypse or Road Warrior situation without a nuclear war can we?

Posted by C3I2 on 2015-04-03 20:37:08
Mouse been smoking again. I tought they banned the hard stuff in Japan? But that contry is a good example, just like Japan, Iran have the potential for Nuclear weapons; one of the large differances (so far) is that Iran have been known to actively try to develop them. Its also a Theocrazy, with built in conflicts with a LOT of their neighbors, and are economically isolated. This would be a shinto-ruled Japan, with plans for expansion, promising the USA that if they are allowed to buy oil and metals (again) they wont develop nuclear weapons for a ten year period (we wont start until 1946, we promise!).
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-04-03 20:59:00
Any moral grandstanding on Iran having nukes is laughable given Pakistan has 'em and we turn a blind eye towards all the corruption and compromised security because they are temporarily useful to the US military interests.

I'd also like to point out that Iran isn't like the Taliban or ISIS in terms of rationality and projection of force. Theocracy sure, but a self interested one who weighs the limited options it has.


Posted by C3I2 on 2015-04-03 21:02:28
The reason you need to speak Capabilites rather then Intensions in security policy, is that the latter is almost impossible to predict. Feel free to explain how you feel about Putins future plans, perhaps after "Gazing into his eyes".
Posted by shadow46x2 on 2015-04-03 21:07:26
by your logic of "capabilities rather than intensions(sic)", the USA is the most dangerous country in the world, and we should have sanctions put on us by everyone, far beyond anything that Iran or Russia would be eligible for...
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-04-03 21:18:54
It's not impossible to predict. There have been moments where we teetered on nuclear annihilation and it didnt happen because somewhere, in the back of the mind of the people with the keys to launch knew that it would end life as we knew it and it wasn't worth it being wrong on a potential false alarm.
Posted by PainState on 2015-04-03 22:31:04
The idea of letting Iran make nukes is the idea it counters Israel’s nukes. The exact same way there is no outrage of Pakistan having nukes to neutralize India having nukes. It is a regional nuclear balance of power.

The main reason the USA and Russia are the big dogs is that all those other countries do not have global reach with their weapons. They cannot press a button had launch a nuke around the world like the USA or Russia.

So the idea from the point of view of Russia and USA is that these other countries with nukes cannot reach us, especially the USA. China is constantly trying to get the technology from the USA and Russia so they too can have global reach with their weapons.

Not to mention the cold hard realities. USA and Russia not only have nukes, they have MIRV nukes, one weapon, 10-14 warheads with KILO Tons that are X100 to X300 that of the bombs used on Japan in WWII.

Pakistan can load up its nukes on a plane, drop it on Delhi, it is the same strength as the ones used in WWII. USA or Russian takes exceptions to this, launches one nuke, turns into 14 and then Pakistan is no more, half of Delhi is reduced to rubble, the world mourns for a week but everybody now knows not to launch nukes or the USA or Russia will blow you up.

So that is a nutshell is the defense of the USA brokering a deal with Iran. Who cares? they cant reach us but we can reach them.
Posted by PainState on 2015-04-03 22:32:02
I have to say that I was shocked, when I logged back in 3 hours later this did not have 20 votes for a 1.2 and the FUMBBL universe imploded in rage over another PainState blog.
Posted by C3I2 on 2015-04-03 22:41:09
You only have 8 or so 1-votes.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-03 22:49:51
C3I2 are you under the impression I'm Japanese? Are you unloading on Japan to get at me?......If so feel free, unload away buddy. I really didn't get your point....apart from to have a dig at me and your English is terrible. Anyway I don't have a strong opinion either way.

I do however know quite a bit about Muslim culture and how it works. It's pretty clear that US sanctions work on importance and ability to fulfill said sanctions, which is commonsense.

My point is Shia Iran, should have never have been a mortal enemy. Why it's the case, I don't know and far to complicated to look into when I can be doing fun things. However the sooner that's sorted, the sooner the west has a foothold and understanding with the Muslim community. As the majority of the the Gulf are Sunni that's a precarious alliance with ISIS running around liberating the Muslim world.

I also think we should have a Painstate sanction. Where he can only blog about blood bowl.
Posted by fidius on 2015-04-03 22:52:36
Iran is the proven primary backer of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and many other designated terrorist organizations. Their officials regularly and publicly proclaim "death to America" (even in the last 24 hours), and have among their stated goals to wipe Israel off the map. They are backing fighters in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. They are a theocratic state led by crazy people who think they are preparing for end-times, and have repeatedly proven over the last century that they can't be trusted with any agreement. Striking a deal with them is lunacy of the highest order.

America has now fled 4 middle eastern countries on Obama's watch: Iraq, Lybia, Syria, and Yemen. Iran and ISIS are competing in the void left by America's astoundingly bad policy decisions. Now they put Iran on a path to the bomb and suddenly Saudi Arabia starts talking about their own nuclear weapons program. Others will follow. The West's eventual deal with Iran will lift sanctions, relieving the economic pressure and making the mullahs out to be heroes. Putin is feared to be looking askance at the Baltics. You can see where this is heading -- in fact you can just look at history, 1938 in Munich to be exact.

If Obama and his leftists were actively trying to incite war in that region, it's hard to think of anything they would do differently.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-04-03 23:12:41
We Americans have people in our government that are crazy and preparing for end times. If you did a straw poll among members of congress in how many believe in the literalness of the Bible, God and the Rapture it would be startling.

Honestly, the people who run the show in Iran are not hell bent on getting themselves annihilated, any more than almost every Evangelical Congress critters are hell bent on hastning the end of days.

Also, You'd still have us in Vietnam with your mentality. I admire your commitment to lost causes, maybe you should play stunty teams in Box more ;)
Posted by licker on 2015-04-03 23:14:29
"I do however know quite a bit about Muslim culture and how it works."

Then you should know that no muslim country possessing nuclear weapons is a good idea.

Neither is it really a good idea for non-muslim countries, but oh well there, a bit late to shove that genii back in the bottle sadly.

About the only realistic way to reel in the entire process is for some nation (so not some fundy group, an actual government, though in countries like Iran I can see why some might not get the distinction) to go ahead and use their nukes. Then 'the rest of the world' might actually get off their collective asses and do something useful.

I'm betting on Isreal being the country which actually does this.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-04-03 23:25:16
Israel might use their nukes preemptively and unilaterally on the basis of feeling threatened by Iran's nuclear program.

Or we might just kick the can down the road for another day.

If anyone is expecting for things to be "solved" indefinitely with these negotiations and whatnot, you either want to live in another universe or just don't understand the nature of history where treaties and accords are meant to be broken or renegotiated at a future point in time as situations change. That fact that Iran cheats or North Korea cheats doesn't make these things useless, it reaffirms that a non unilateral commitment to engaging them keeps them from reflexively throwing a tantrum that they're being ignored. A lot of you warhawks seem to view the world like it's a game with a set time limit, clear winners and losers and there are iron clad rules to how the world should work. Get over it.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-03 23:44:42
I'm not pro nuclear, I'm also certainly not pro Islam. Although I have my problems with the US, I'd be quite happy with them conducting most affairs. However the future isn't looking that way, not matter what war monger you put in control.

It's strange for me. Obama is heckled as the guy who's selling out the US and it's values. On the outside, I'm not sure what he's expected to do differently.

You have the Islam state that's a slowly boiling fire. The US have added fuel to that, and both the US and UK government are damned what ever you do now.

You have China, India and more nations to come gaining capital at a scary rate, which can be likened to children getting uzi guns for christmas.

And you have the Russians. Unless your Russian, I'm not sure you can understand Russian mentality. They don't take shit? They don't want shit? They remember shit of the past? They like to play with shit? They're looking to cause shit? Any opportunity to exploit shit and they will exploit it.... who knows. What we do know is that under the present regime they're bad news and bad news Russia isn't good.

There have been a lot of wars, and a lot of focal points. The more focal points created the less power you can focus on each point. I really don't see the need on focusing on a point that is unnecessary.

Iran's problems with the USA revolve around past issues. This isn't necessarily the country's view either. A few pictures on TV of extremists burning the American flag is usually enough to convince the majority that this is the country's view. The opinion I have been given though, is that as Muslim countries go, it's a pretty cool place. The people are pretty cool. I haven't been there myself mind.

Iran is worried that's for sure. ISIS is just outside of the Gulf, and has supporters in the Gulf. You think ISIS is anti US? That's nothing compared to how they feel about Iran. Iran is looking for a deterrent. Making their nuclear capabilities clear to Sunni extremists is a logical move.
Posted by licker on 2015-04-03 23:45:59
Sounds positively Chamberlainesque!

:D

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's a clear solution to any of these issues, and honestly, doing nothing might be the best course of action. Yet, we all know that will never happen.

What I know to be true is that so long as there is religion in the world peace will never be known.
Posted by licker on 2015-04-03 23:50:41
The above was to MrT...

"A few pictures on TV of extremists burning the American flag is usually enough to convince the majority that this is the country's view."

Ahh, yes, the old tried and true excuse.

Sorry it doesn't fly anymore. Whether or not whatever number of muslims are actual extremists doesn't matter anymore. What matters is what this supposed peaceful muslim majority is willing to do to correct their itinerant few.

You know what the problem is there don't you? They are not willing to do anything. *shrug*

Christianity wasn't much better, but Islam is like 1000 years behind developmentally. Pity their throes of figuring it all out happen in a nuclear age.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-04-04 00:15:34
it's the same issue moderate republicans have with the tea party faction of their political coalition though...can't live with em, can't live without em.

I don't have a solution per se, I just hate sabre rattling coming from the wrong place which is "We have to do something...or else..."
Posted by coombz on 2015-04-04 00:16:00
harvestmouse is right on the money in most of his points, imho

the one thing i would slightly amend or disagree with, is "Iran's problems with the USA revolve around past issues."

actually, USA problems with Iran revolve around Israel. The USA is Israel's little b**ch in the middle east. All the problems there, and with a lot of Muslim extremists in the West, stem from that root problem...imo

it's very problematic to blame Jews for anything really...but you can't ignore the truth forever
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-04 00:18:56
Typically American response, black and white 'we're right'. I often doubt how much of the real world most Americans really are aware of, or how much they really understand or about their position in the world. Don't get me wrong, I mostly think you guys do come to the right decision and do maintain peace of sorts. But the view of the world and reasoning and the general 'higher than though feel' I often can't relate to.

It's no problem to me, you want to pick fights at every opportunity then elect your Bushes and go for it. Personally though, I'd think you'd be better off electing presidents that have experience living abroad and diplomatic views on world politics.
Posted by licker on 2015-04-04 00:42:52
Not that I am remotely a fan of Isreal, but can you really place all the blame on what's happening in the middle east on them?
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-04 00:54:40
"Britain governed this area under a League of Nations mandate from 1920 to 1948. To the Arab population who lived there, it was their homeland and had been promised to them by the Allies for help in defeating the Turks by the McMahon Agreement - though the British claimed the agreement gave no such promise.

The same area of land had also been promised to the Jews (as they had interpreted it) in the Balfour Declaration and after 1920, many Jews migrated to the area and lived with the far more numerous Arabs there. At this time, the area was ruled by the British and both Arabs and Jews appeared to live together in some form of harmony in the sense that both tolerated then existence of the other."

Hindsight.....I'd like to know what should have happened and how to solve the problem there now. I don't think there's an answer to either. Unify the religions they all kinda say the same thing anyway......"don't be a dick unless you're doing it in the name of god".
Posted by coombz on 2015-04-04 00:55:35
"Not that I am remotely a fan of Isreal, but can you really place all the blame on what's happening in the middle east on them?"

Well, I guess this is kind of arguing semantics, but I didn't say they deserve all the blame.

I said that the root problem is America being Israel's catspaw in the middle east.

For one fairly significant example, 9/11 didn't happen because the Qu'ran says kill all non-believers, or because people in the middle east are jealous of western freedom, or any nonsense like that. The people behind those attacks, and other similar extremist events, hate America because you're always sticking your nose in to stuff that doesn't concern you over there. And America is always sticking its nose in because you are Israel's little b**ch.
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-04-04 01:04:19
Thanks Painstate. You are the only right wing person I have ever met, that isn't afraid to talk politics. Keep it up and... don't worry. ;)
Posted by licker on 2015-04-04 01:09:53
"... the area was ruled by the British..." is the key as far as I am concerned. At least in so far as they all 'tolerated' each other. But this is only talking about Isreal proper what does it have to do with Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Or Egypt and the wars they initiated against the new state on their border? I don't think there's much to be learned going back that far. I'm with you on the hind sight though I'm not sure what else should have been done unless you are willing to champion there never being a jewish home state. I'm willing to champion that honestly, but I don't think it was in the cards.

"For one fairly significant example, 9/11 didn't happen because the Qu'ran says kill all non-believers, or because people in the middle east are jealous of western freedom, or any nonsense like that. The people behind those attacks, and other similar extremist events, hate America because you're always sticking your nose in to stuff that doesn't concern you over there."

To a degree this may be true, but 9/11 and the US is not the only attack or only state state which has been affected by radical islamic terrorism before or since.

You're just making an easy statement which is just a bunch of pots and pans being rattled about. Are you really afraid of the true reason why islamic terrorism strikes about in a blind rage as it appears to do?

The true reason which you actually gave. *shrug*

Go back to the statement about how not all muslims are radicals and I'll happily agree.

That doesn't help any though unless they are willing to take out their own trash, which, they most clearly are not. Whether they are all dancing in the streets after bombing some night club in Isreal or they are sitting at home, they are not doing enough (my opinion is that they are not doing anything). So the wounded animals, no matter how vastly more powerful they may be, strike back, because the bible in it's infinite stupidity calls for an eye for an eye and far too many mouth breathers believe that to be good.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal recently ran an interesting article on this very notion about how all muslims are essentially tacit contributors to the terror their supposedly despised minority wages. It might be worth looking into if you are interested in the topic.
Posted by coombz on 2015-04-04 01:34:07
"That doesn't help any though unless they are willing to take out their own trash, which, they most clearly are not."

Judge not, lest yet be judged first.

Don't see you guys taking out the trash in your own country :)
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-04 01:34:44
It affects Saudi Arabia and Iran because Jerusalem is on an Islamic holy site. They maintain it is theirs and Jews have no right being there. So all Muslims are united on that front; Jews have no place there (or the world).

I'd say the vast majority of Muslims are radicals compared to most of us. Strong religious views are not a choice for most, neither is tolerance. We are to be converted or swept aside by means.

Posted by Cloggy on 2015-04-04 01:46:26
I don't get it.....

Some high level American diplomats have convinced a former terrorist state to give up just about all of it's nuclear weapons developing capacity. In exchange nothing was given up except for some mutually damaging sanctions to be lifted.

How in HELL is this a bad thing? How can having Iran close down most of it's nuclear proliferation capabilities possibly be a bad thing?

Misinformation FTW or something? The chance of Iran ever having nukes just went down exponentially and yet those who have always seen them as a danger somehow think Obama just made them MORE dangerous?

Come on already. If right wing 'Merica and orthodox Isreal is really getting that stupid, perhaps it's time to worry about American and Israeli nukes and let Iran have them..........
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-04-04 01:48:06
Harvest, am very surprised about your elaboration to the nuclear weapons program.

I'm not very up to date with the current political events Painstate is alluding to.
I was very unaware of Iranian possesion of nuclear weapons tho, so I looked in Wikipedia now for informations but could not pinpoint anything that indicates the Iran did possess nuclear weapons for a very long time.
I saw a mention of 2009 and I know of Pakistan having possessed nuclear weapons for a very long time.

If the current situation is truely about the type of nuclear weapons Iran develops, i'd like to know what type they did possess so far and what type they are trying to develop now.

It's hard for me to imagine that it makes a huge difference to a foreign power whether a potential threat comes in form of a classic fission based bomb or a larger hydrogen bomb.. either would be pretty bad.

From a foreign perspective the only thing I could imagine to make a difference is the missile technology the warhead is put on and you need to have essentially space travel grade technology to build an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Which are also so expensive that they essentially only make sense to build with nuclear warheads.
ICBMs are also not really appealing because they are the easiest to intercept due to their long flight time. I believe the Natos Star Wars program was developed for this particular purpose.

In case of a nuclear war the biggest damage would probably stem from mid range missiles launched from submarines.

And I remember a debate being about Iran not having that technology IF they ever got their hands on nuclear bombs. The outlined issue was I believe that they would be still a threat to Isreal.

Anyways, I always understood this as a theoretical thought exercise not as a current day issue. My understanding was that Iran was in fact in the process of building nuclear weapons.
It doesn't really make sense to me why the US would invest so much ressources in stopping the nuclear energy program, since it would not help to advance missile technology.

If I remember correctly, early in the century, the US used vast ressources to rebuild a nuclear power plant of Iran 1:1 in the US for the sole purpose of finding a way to sabotage its development. What they came up with was the most elaborated Virus in history at that time that became known as 'Stuxnet'.

None of this really makes sense to me if the Iran had in fact nuclear weapons all along, or at least if this had been common knowledge to be the case.

Anyways, I'd be grateful for additional informations on the matter and on whether I have assessed everything correctly.

Posted by albinv on 2015-04-04 02:33:18
Imho those last two posts kicked the mostest ass. =)
Posted by licker on 2015-04-04 04:14:39
"
Judge not, lest yet be judged first.

Don't see you guys taking out the trash in your own country :)"

Then, quite simply, you are not looking. This is simply not debatable. Whether in the US or the West in general ANY kind of religious extremism that leads to violence is deplored and the perpetrators are arrested or killed.

But that's not really even the entire point. The point is that christianity (which I am not a member of) has been around longer than islam and has gone through it's schisms and holy wars. It did this centuries ago, and the results were horrible to behold, yet what emerged afterwards was built out of the principles of the enlightenment, renaissance, and several other revolutions.

The historical path islam is on is not truly that different, but, that period is playing out TODAY. That's a bigger problem since TODAY the world possesses the technology to destroy itself, something that did not exist even 100 years ago.

"It affects Saudi Arabia and Iran because Jerusalem is on an Islamic holy site. They maintain it is theirs and Jews have no right being there. So all Muslims are united on that front; Jews have no place there (or the world)."

The site you speak of is holy to all 3 religions, it's not a purely islamic site. Jews have as much place there as xians and muslims. We're not talking about Mecca afterall... which is... well if you know islam as well as you say then you know the difference, which is NOT insignificant. But your point is still valid, though even in saying it you realize the problem with any religion laying claim to the site and excluding the others (this isn't the actual case either as you are aware).

"I'd say the vast majority of Muslims are radicals compared to most of us. Strong religious views are not a choice for most, neither is tolerance. We are to be converted or swept aside by means."

Exactly. This is no different than xianity centuries ago. Right down to the internal splits and right down to the atrocities committed in each groups name. What the 'solution' to this is I do not know. Time is one, but the problem is what the end result of that 'waiting' is. As I noted earlier, the world is different than it was when xianity went through this, the risks are far far greater.
Posted by BillBrasky on 2015-04-04 06:13:58
Mouse used to delete my blogs when I posted this kinda stuff.

I bet his former admin powers are itching now :)
Posted by harvestmouse on 2015-04-04 08:29:45
FUMBBL isn't the place for blogs like this, in my opinion. I'm not sure how many blogs I used to delete though.... Deliberately trolling for fights however is unacceptable.

I think cloggy's statement is a good closer.
Posted by C3I2 on 2015-04-04 10:30:19
Yes, HM went overboard with locking threads he did not agree with in the past. Regarding blogs, I have no idea, probably as I never got to see them. It is likely: "The stake that sticks up gets hammered down" interpreted by a Gaijin.

As for US-foreign policy, it is perhaps a good idea to base that on facts not invented nuclear weapons (here in Mouses head and subsequently in his first post, where he claimed Iran already had them). Nor is it ideal to make decisions based on if your friends think a land is cool or not. I sincerely hope HM know more about Japanese/US history then he know about Iran and the Middle east.

Capabilities, not intentions; as intentions is written in sand. As some of you may recall, Russia guaranteed Ukraine's borders in the Budapest Morandum, when Ukraine gave up their nuclear stockpile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
---
And yes, USA IS the most dangerous country on earth (capabilities). It is also one of the most hated countries, to a large extent due to what they can do rather then what they do.



Posted by Leilond on 2015-04-04 11:44:08
The USA is the only nation that really used a nuclear weapon (two times) in the history of humanity
The USA is partecipating in a way or another (practically or selling weapons) to all the war all over the world

It's the last nation that could "authorize" another nation to have or not have nuclear energy. USA do not have any right to tell anyone about who can have or cannot have it. They do it only because they're the stongest (militaty) out there, not because they have any moral right or because the rest of the world recognize this right to them.
Posted by PainState on 2015-04-04 16:17:21
I do not see how a blog, which has been given such a bad rating, falling out of site and into the waste bin can be such an inflammatory thing.

So in the end the only coaches who see it or read it are interested in it and thus keep digging around looking for it and comment on it.


Would you rather have this in off topic?


I limit my post on politics to once every 3-4 months, if that is way to overboard then it seems some coaches have issues, that, I do not really care about to be honest.
Posted by Cloggy on 2015-04-04 16:59:29
There's actually quite a lot of things wrong with your political posts.

1. They are political and as such have no place on this particular website
2. You never bother to actually provide any solid foundation for your claims or opinions. This current one is a very spectacular lowlight in that regard. How the hell you get from the actual facts to your all caps foaming at the mouth hatemongering is beyond me
3. Your posts are often intentionally divisive and as such bad for this community

The opinions you put forward are generally quite extreme and raise the question where you want to draw the line on what you do or don't allow. What's next? Salafist Muslems posting blogs about how everyone who disagrees with them deserves to die? Rabiate Christians promoting the bombing of abortion clinics? I would personally err on the safe side and simply ban all forum discussions and forum posts on religion and politics.

Posted by C3I2 on 2015-04-04 17:46:15
Actually, its not that extreme, I'd say its republican middle America, or flyover country as its called at times. Leilond's post might also seem extreme, but that is standard Euro-left talk; I immediately also assume he supports the Palestinians etc. --- not really strange until you find some US-citizen with the same left persuasions go amoc on USA (there is a lot fewer of those guys).

The real wopper is of course, that there is no agreement; and no process of verification. Without verification any agreement is not worth the paper its not written on yet. That kind of makes this the Obama administration trying to sell the deal before it is finalized. Explains a lot about the reaction from Republicans. Of course, it will be Democrats that will sink this in the senate later. :-9
Posted by Arktoris on 2015-04-04 18:39:17
Harvestmouse is forgetting the Iran hostage situation of 1980. Good thing Americans haven't. Iran's dig at USA goes beyond flag burning.

WMDs are by far the most dangerous in the hands of little guys than big ones. that's the issue here.
Posted by PainState on 2015-04-04 20:10:13
Well Cloggy

I learned a long time ago on this site when it comes to reference, make a solid foundation, it did not matter. Coaches who lambast me for sitting this article or that article, call from on high that Iam a fox news consumer 24/7.

So I realized very fast, sitting articles and so forth was a pointless waste of my time. If you really are interesting in what is going between the USA and Iran as related to this you take your own 10 minutes and do a search.

Yep, you are right, when ever Milford opens his mouth on the fourms or Settra beheads another slacker coach in the KPL that is very divisive and I probably should be more PC about it.

Posted by PainState on 2015-04-04 20:15:49
This got me thinking

when was the last political blog I posted.

Ah, back in March of 2014!!!


So 13 months later, one of "those" PainState blogs on politics gets some coaches panties in a wad. Wow my previous political blogs from way back in the day must of been really good for coaches to remember them.
Posted by licker on 2015-04-05 01:40:32
Why are HM and Cloggy afraid of discussion?

I really don't get it. Is all politics completely off limits? If so then let hypocrisy reign!

No, that's not it obviously. It's only certain politics which are off limits. You guys crack me up though. As though you think fumbblers cannot handle some disagreement on topics other than cpomb or timing people out or turn 16 fouling...

The other thing I find interesting is that HM and I seem to be in agreement on the broader issue raised here.

The other thing I find interesting is the illogical leap to judgment based off of what europeans assume americans are like.

"Don't let Iran have nuclear weapons."

Seems to be a far different statement than...

"Kill everyone who disagrees with me."

Seeing as how the only person who has posted the later is Cloggy, not that he was expressing that sentiment himself.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2015-04-05 02:17:55
A very giood read on he history of nukes: Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. It's hella scary. We have been sooooo lucky so far.
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-04-05 03:03:06
A large part of my school education seems to have been about how political debate is a persons biggest democratic responsibility and how you should always be discussing it. At work, with friends, at home, with the girlfriend and certainly on a game site in game and off game.

Totalitarian is any attempt to undermine a debate. Trolling happens when somebody swoops into a blog and proclaims the topics sucks. Not when somebody makes a controversial statement based on his sincere beliefs, no matter how weird.

To be honest, I can understand why to tolitarians, debates can seem like a source of conflict: Nothing really phases me in life ever but when somebody makes a genuine attempt to shut me up, my first instinct is to clubber him to death. I'll probably not do it, but any attempt like that is an attempt of excertion of political control and retaining a monopoly on opinions. It does not prevent political opinion, it just assures deviating opinions are not heard. That's the moment when the democratic process fails and all bets are off. So I can understand that when you have an opion like that and meet somebody like me, you'll find that a debate will get very heated and very personal very very quickly. So just because of that I see why it can lead someone to believe debates can get seriously bad.. because with such an opinion they will.

I guess there are two reasons to debate:

1. You have discussed a topic endlessly, formed an opinion and want to make it known. Somebody else may swoop in and make an opposing opinion known. Both sides are stuck in their predefined opinions and any further debate is just a source of endless conflict.
An example for this would be the usual clawpomb debates on the site.
In this context it is more constructive to be able to sum the differing opinions up than have an own opinion.
Essentially any debate is already over and you are looking for agreement, not conflict.

2. The more common situation is that a debate is in full swing. You have an opinion but you do not know if it could withstand debate and if there are points of contention that haven't been debated yet.
THIS is the actual reason to have a debate. Agreement in this context is a problem because agreement will almost certainly result in counter arguments getting unchecked and unheard.
Therefore in the context of an actual debate it is more important to make a POLARIZING statement than actually believing in it.
This is what starts the debate.

Intentionally avoiding people from a different end of the political spectrum will almost certainly result in having degraded and extremist views on the world. So the more extreme a view is you have, or the more you feel a view you have may be extreme, the more important it becomes to check it with the world and with people who don't live in your village and say yay to everything.

If you believe all debates are about no. 1 rather than no. 2, I can understand why debates would feel alienating, however debates are just usually not about no.1 and it's just those guys who make condescending statements without content who are trolling.

Either way, to me this blog was interesting, I learned a little bit from it and the no.2 goal seems to have been accomplished all around. So thank you for all things DIVISIVE.
Posted by Arktoris on 2015-04-05 10:10:32
I agree with wreckage.

also will add that this is first and foremost a community. Any discussion is good as the game itself is pointless. If bloodbowl were the only thing offered here, you'd play about 100 times and get bored...as you've exhausted all the game has to offer.
Posted by PaddyMick on 2015-04-05 13:21:19
+1 to more of this sort of thing. We have some intelligent coaches on here and it's great to read opinion from the common man around the world. Best thing is we can also play BB.
Posted by albinv on 2015-04-05 18:02:34
Boom!
Posted by C3I2 on 2015-04-06 01:51:19
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-4-fatal-flaws-the-iran-deal-12551
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-04-06 05:37:09
I think what you republicans are just missing with this whole issue aswell as this article is that the alternative to the agreement was to do essentially nothing.

I think Cloggy was kinda spot on: There is no rational reason to oppose this.

..That is unless you truely believe trade sanctions would help preventing the Iran obtaining more uranium from Russia.

I should add 'better than the current agreement' but that's besides the point because quite frankly I do not see how the sanctions really help at all to that end. Isn't their mere purpose to put a regime under pressure to change its behavior? Do you think if you continue sanctions for another 6 month Iran will suddenly say: Ok, we want to make more trade with the US and Europe, we really had enough, we'll end this stupid nuclear program now and shut everything down! And how do you know they will tell the truth then?
Posted by licker on 2015-04-06 17:08:12
This is the problem with sanctions when you cannot gain unilateral support for them.

But I don't think the alternative was 'nothing' it was 'maintain the status quo'.

Was that working or was that going to work? No and not likely.

What we will probably see in the near-mid future is Isreal taking some course of action which will not be sanctioned or supported (at least openly...) by the rest of the world.

But all of this griping about what to do about Iran is really beside the point of what to do about Islam in general. I'm fresh out of ideas, I think we just have to let Islam figure itself out and hope that that doesn't include nuclear terrorism.
Posted by fidius on 2015-04-07 02:37:34
The bottom line is that if it's true the Iranians were (are) 2-3 months from generating enough fission material for one nuclear bomb, it's possible that a major urban centre of the world is 2-3 months from no longer being a major urban centre.

In my view, if you're going to worry about anything political at any point in history, you worry about THIS.

But I'm sure it will all be fine.
Posted by Leilond on 2015-04-07 11:29:49
I'm constantly worried that USA will do that... because they're the only one in history that had the proud of doing it, two times

I really really do not understand why, in the damn hell, USA take the right to tell anyone if they can have nuclear energy or not. There's no logical reason to accept this presumption

If there is a nation that do not deserve to have the nuclear bomb, is the nation that, in the last 50 years, partecipated to more wars, and the ONLY nation that used a nuclear bomb (twice) in the human history: the United Stats of America
Posted by fidius on 2015-04-09 00:32:30
Because they're the strongest of the good guys, obviously. If you believe otherwise, you've been drinking the leftist Kool-Aid.

(Quick quiz btw: Was President Truman a Republican or a Democrat?)

The Iranian deal leaves their nuclear infrastructure intact and gives them plenty of room to cheat. Since we know that Iran desires to dominate the world and wipe Israel off the map, the bottom line choice is between conventional war against Iran now, or nuclear war later. Obama is opting for the latter. In other words, he's kicking the can down the road so he doesn't have to be the president who set the Middle East ablaze. Ironically he will go down in history as the man who did just that.
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-04-11 09:20:04
Truman was rather cautious, I'd guess he was a democrat. People who whine about the US using nuclear bombs against Japan do not really understand the nature of these weapons. They probably think not using them is an ideological matter and that it is somewhat the same as with biological or chemical bombs. Which it is not. Those things are on entirely different levels when it comes to real politics.

The reason not to use nuclear weapons is not ethical in nature. It is a matter of self preservation. Who builds these weapons today builds them for the same reason. When the USA build the first nuclear weapons this was not the case. The whole outset was different, neither was predictable how the whole situation would develop from their on out. When the USA bombed Japan they did not have to fear retaliation of any sort. Looking back in history and comparing those events to today this has not changed.

This does not mean the US won't ever nuclear weapons from here on out. They are in fact as likely to use them as anyone else or more likely because they have more than anyone else.

However, when it comes to survival of the world, it is not a matter of fairness. If there are 5 people with access to a red button that could destroy the world it is not the sensitive thing to give it to 40 more people who all want it to because that is fairer. The perspective of those 40 people is perfectly justifiable tho when they feel like they are at a disadvantage in negotiations by not having such a button. From a third party perspective however, aswell as from being one of the 5 with access it just isn't smart supporting access for anyone else, no matter how unfair that may seem.

If a country would use nuclear weapons today, the logical reaction is retaliation. If a country throws one bomb today, it might throw two tomorrow or even in the next 20 minutes. Military strategically speaking any nuclear attack would have to be answered imidiatly to avoid destruction on a massive scale.
In case of Iran that would mean if they ever decided to attack Isreal with nuclear weapons they have to anticipate a scorched earth scenario from the side of Isreals allies the United States. Iran would be gone within 20 minutes after the attack.

The only imaginable reason the US could refrain from that course of action would be out of fear of a Russian response, a global nuclear war and the end of the world. It's a poker game who dares the most. But even in the least catastrophic case, Israel possess nuclear weapons themselves and obviously would respond to a nuclear attack with a nuclear attack.

For Iran to actually use nuclear weapons would put them in a lose-lose situation. The only context in which a person can sensibly claim the Iran would use nuclear weapons at any given point is in a context as lunatics who do not care about their own lives or future.
As far as that argument goes, I feel the proponents of that view have undergone some massive propaganda. The Iran is a highly progressive state based on classic islamic rules and ideas, perfectly adapted to the 21st century. It's a religious meritocracy build by academics and the highest moral instances of the country. This may be hard to accept for an atheist, but religious leaders, no matter what sort, are the only people in modern society who actually still discuss the ethical questions on a professional level. Iran elects a civilian leader that has to be sanctioned by this group of experts. This is not how we do it, this isn't how anyone else in the islamic world does it, but jeez, 'Iran wants to conquer the world'? Where did that even come from. Tune it down a notch with the US propaganda.

No, you don't get nuclear weapons to use them and you don't get them to look funny in your basement either. You get nuclear weapons because if a country tries to conquer you, it has to fear that those weapons are going to be used as some sort of last resort, ie: when I have nothing else to lose, I might as well go nuclear.
With the scenario I have outlined it also illustrates what's wrong with that assumption because a nuclear response may spawn a much harsher response a losing country would experience otherwise. Nevertheless, it remains a poker game. It's a matter of daring and poking the bear. It's a matter of when who loses his cool and it's a game where every country thats playing is actually well advised to appear calm but easy to provoke.
It is a military strategical necessity. Whenever you see a great power making statements about the use of nuclear weapons remember that your state official isn't just speaking to you, it's also speaking to all foreign governments who may be listening in.

The question to ask is, is the attempt of Iran to build nuclear weapons unreasonable because it has not to fear any conquest from foreign nations, therefore the purpose of its actions must be offensive and self destructive in nature? I think the Iran has plenty of reasons to fear an invasion and it's an arms race between the US to conquer the country and Iran to build those bombs before it happens.
Once they are build, the US has to reevalute any war efforts in the future and will not be longer able to conquer the country, because whatever problems Iran is causing, it is not such a big deal that it is worth risking nuclear destruction of say Isreal over it.

Isreals position is on the other hand a bit different because one nuke would be enough to essentially wipe the country from the map. And if Iran would decide to go with a first strike option, no matter how nuts, it wouldn't help Isreal if Iran was also destroyed in the aftermath. Isreal would be still gone. And it is certainly very terrible to have to put that kind of trust in a country that has explicitly declared that it does not recognize the right of Israel to exist.

The actual chance for any of this to happen can be fine adjusted somewhere between 0.02 to 0.01%.

The people who are really unhappy with the deal are unhappy because their true alternative is war. What you don't seem to see with this option is that the current global situation is no place to start a war with Iran. Particularly not in an unstable middle east that is in large parts in open revolt with all kinds of different anti-american fractions. In this chaos Iran is a rather stable factor, attacking it right now would be nuts and also really hard to justify to the US allies after the completely unjustified Iraq war.

As for Obama, although I find his national politics to be somewhat lacking, his foreign policy keeps being impressive and it's sad to see that he apparently only feels free to make somewhat good decisions now that the voters can't get to him anymore.
I'm glad to see that the cuban embargo seems to come to an end and hopfully setting on reason than paranoia will be a good step in the right direction.

How well the US will actually be able to surveillance the Iran nuclear project and how easy it will be for the Iranians to bypass the surveillance, will remain to be seen. It's not really a question I think any of us could reliably answer, nor any politicians who talk about it these days. It is however quite clearly not the kind of deal a US government would take unless it would believe there is a point to it. That is unless you believe the US AND the Iranian government consists of incompetent lunatics.

So gratz man Obama, well done. Keep the ball rolling like this and I might end up actually liking you and the more you war lovers cry the happier I am about the democrats being in power. And Truman you were a cool dude too, so don't listen to the haters. No matter from what polticial fraction they are.