No. I've called you out and you can keep on trying to deny it, but it's all rather well documented on GC. And don't call anyone biased when it is you who goes around complaining that people off of GC have called you a bigot and whatnot.

Hey now you should leave Greekchat like you said you would.

-Rudey
--I mean it must be embarassing for your fraternity threatening to kill me and then letting everyone know why you weren't in the military anymore

Funny but the Brothers (and many others) on GC didn't think that my opinions, words, or comments were embarassing... quite the oposite in fact judging from the many emails and PMs I got asking me to stay.

I didn't let everyone know why I left the military a few years back... I explained to some why I found your acusations to be so distasteful and why I reacted the way I did... oh and I'm in the military now if your wondering.

Well I know some of your brothers supported you. It's always great to know that your fraternity, Lambda Chi Alpha, has you on board threating to kill me and then some of your brothers being supportive of you and even insulting me while you did it. It was a proud day for your fraternity and yourself. And then now you're backing away from your little reference to why you weren't in the military at that time.

You would think after embarassing and shaming yourself and your fraternity you would want to stop, but hey whatever floats your boat.

-Rudey

As for whether it was a proud day for the Fraternity... I don't think it was. I allowed myself to be baited and goaded by an individual purportedly from another GLO and I responded in a way not befitting of the principles of intra-Fraternal relations, nor gentlemanly conduct.... principles that apply whether or not the other party meets them.

I'm not backing away from my statement that I wasn't in the military at the time... I did leave the military, and at the time I made the statement I wasn't then in the military... but hey as they say that was then, this is now....

Oh the last part of your post is classic... I'm mean the irony of you making that statement alone elevates the humour to a new level.

Anyhoooo.... back to our regularly scheduled debate about foreign policy as it applies to Iran...

I see. My signature will be back just for you so people can see how you're just another violent criminal. Quotes are more powerful than small talk.

-Rudey

I started this thread b/c in my opinion and the opinion of others is that if Iran is allowed to develop Nuclear weapons they would sell this weapons to terrorist groups. Iraq unlike Iran had no attentions of trying to spread strict Islamic rule throughout the middle east which by the way is the same attentions of most of these terrorist groups.

See I don't know if they would be more likely to sell to terrorists... yes they would be more likely than Iraq, only because of the capabilities possessed by both nations... but politically I don't see it happening - they might be willing to help other nations develop the capacity to counter the US or Israel, but selling to rogue groups or terrorists is I think that the Iranian administration would see as too risky... the only candidate (currently) that I can see aiding a terrorist or rogue group is North Korea.

I'll post what I said earlier:

1) World police: You've talked about how we shouldn't be the world police and then create a thread about making us the world police in another country. But I do think we should make an effort here just like in Iraq. We should have done the same in Pakistan - a friendly US ally that spread nuclear technology everywhere evidently.

2) Violations of Laws: Iraq violated sanctions over and over and didn't comply with UN weapons inspectors.

3) Diplomatic Efforts: The US has met with Europe and pushed them to punish Iran and also offer incentives to move away from nuclear power. The problem is that it is the French who put the Ayatollah in power. The filthy Euros and their blood hungry leadership has set the country back by hundreds of years. And yes America too. Anyway, diplomatically America is trying to achieve as much as it can before it moves towards any other steps.

4) Intelligence: Also, it needs to be fully sure of what's going on. In Iraq, the whole world had faulty intelligence and I doubt America is willing to just jump on this train no matter what.

-Rudey

I must respectfully disagree w/ you b/c of Iran's unending desire to spread strict islamic rule throughout the region I feel that they would take a chance and sell to terrorist groups who share the same view point.

Look I included the countries because they had their own intelligence about the Iraq and Saddam... some that supported the US accusations, some that refuted them. As for the "blood" money... well guess what there are US and UK citizens and companies on the list as well, problem is that their identities haven't been made available to the public.

The issues that these countries expressed were actually somewhat intelligent and valid, but they didn't make the US media coverage in the drumming up to war... for instance France, Russia, Germany, Canada, Italy, and even the UK question the reliance on defector's intelligence... partitially because these people had an axe to grind, wanted to please the Bush Admninistration (they sign the cheques), and had a lot to gain.

Basically there was "talk" that the Bush administration had draw cunclusions first and then looked for intelligence to fit these conclusions... unfortunately with this approach objectivity is lost as politics influence the analysis of intelligence to fit the desdired "line"... this "talk" (well on media news sources and such) has gained more credance as more and more flaws are exposed in the pre-war planning and intelligence, flaws created by political interference in a "non-political" body (the intelligence community) that at it's core must remain objective to maintain peak effectiveness and credibility.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rudey
[B]I'll post what I said earlier:

1) World police: You've talked about how we shouldn't be the world police and then create a thread about making us the world police in another country. But I do think we should make an effort here just like in Iraq. We should have done the same in Pakistan - a friendly US ally that spread nuclear technology everywhere evidently.

2) Violations of Laws: Iraq violated sanctions over and over and didn't comply with UN weapons inspectors.

3) Diplomatic Efforts: The US has met with Eu

Interesting.......why are you so ready to defend Iran and your #4 is laughable. " Intelligence :Also, it needs to be fully sure of what's going on.

See I just haven't seen Iran on the religious crusade since the 90s... as the more secular middle class has gained more economic and political power the Iranian government has increasingly turned to domestic politics... so sure they have a foreign policy, but it is increasingly a reflection of domestic concerns... so developing nuclear capabilities has been touted as a counter to Israel's nukes and American interference... all in an effort to garner further support internally in Iranian politics.

Listen Anglo-White boy, you know nothing about the developments inside Iran so stop making shyeet up. This isn't the cornfields of Canada.

-Rudey

Calling RC an Anglo-white boy crosses the boundaries of decent behavior, I believe your true colors are coming out Rudey.