Israel better not start something big.

Quote :

"Iran's foreign ministry spokesman has warned Tehran will not hesitate to retaliate with a crushing blow if Israel attacks its nuclear sites. This follows comments by Israel's deputy defence minister Ephraim Sneh. He had suggested Israel could launch military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations as a last resort. Mohammed Ali Hosseini said if Israel indulged in such stupidity, then the response of Iranian fighters would be emphatic, crushing and immediate. Mr Hosseini said it would not take one second. Earlier, Mr Sneh had said he was not advocating a military attack, but considered it a last resort and he added sometimes the last resort was the only resort. Also on the nuclear issue, Iran's Foreign Ministry reiterated the country's policy of trying to have 3,000 centrifuge machines operational by March next year in order to enrich uranium. However so far, all the indications are that Iran only has a couple of hundred centrifuges working. "

They are going to go nuclear as they have a right to and if Israel starts a war over this we would be in trouble

[Edited on November 12, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : leave them alone.]

11/12/2006 1:50:17 PM

i haven't really figure this chick out yet

11/12/2006 1:54:09 PM

its interesting because I'm sure she would shit a brick if the USA started expanding its nuclear capability


but america's enemy.... that's different! they have a right to go nuclear (non-proliferation treaty notwithstanding)

11/12/2006 1:57:45 PM

im not happy with nuclear expansion in general.

[Edited on November 12, 2006 at 2:06 PM. Reason : !]

11/12/2006 2:06:04 PM

I don't think it is wise to leave alone a nation that publicly supports terrorism...

11/12/2006 2:06:39 PM

sup cxmai

11/12/2006 2:07:20 PM

I'm not excited about nuclear weapons in general but unstable theocracies are the last places I want them.

11/12/2006 2:14:00 PM

A similar view holds that Lucas' continual revisionism masks the perceived "fact" that Lucas is, contrary to claims, "making it up as he goes along." A cornerstone of much of Lucas' discussion and promotion of his three, later six Star Wars films is that they follow an epic, pre-planned story arc. On numerous occasions in sundry interviews over the decades Lucas has stated that the basic plot, back story and character arcs of the Star Wars saga were all mapped out before he made the first film, Episode IV.

Some fans, however, doubt this on the basis of deduction, intuition, anecdotal evidence and, in some cases, access to earlier drafts (or summaries of drafts) of the early scripts, fueling a debate in some circles. Among the arguments:

* That Darth Vader was originally intended to be Luke Skywalker's father, despite the lack of any explicit teaser in Episode IV. This can also be explained by the fact that it was meant to be a guarded secret (as has been mentioned, Mark Hamill only learned about this just before he had to act out the scene in Empire Strikes Back).
* That Leia was originally intended to be Luke's sister, despite the romantic tension between the characters in Episodes IV and V, which is later revealed to be incestuous.
* Further, that Darth Vader was intended to be Leia's father, despite him having spent a significant amount of time with her, and is even implied to have tortured her. However, this can be debated because Revenge of the Sith explicitly established that Vader did not know that his children had survived Padme's death, let alone that he had fathered twins.
* That the character of Yoda was conceived of prior to Episode V, despite the lack of any prior mention of his existence. (This is a comparatively verifiable case, however, as Lucas has openly admitted on various DVD documentaries and commentaries that he had not decided to kill off Obi-Wan Kenobi until during the actual making of Episode IV. Lucas presumably intended Kenobi to provide the further tutelage to Luke in the subsequent films. There is even speculation that Lucas possibly even intended Kenobi to eventually die of natural causes as Yoda does in Episode VI.)
* That many aspects of the prequel films were pre-planned, such as the structure of the Jedi Order, the nature of the Padawan/Master mentorship, Palpatine's rise to power and the political situations which gave rise to the Empire, despite the lack of any mention of them in the original trilogy.
* That the nature of Anakin Skywalker's induction to the Jedi Order was originally planned to take place as it was depicted in Episode I, despite the seeming incongruity of Obi-Wan Kenobi's "later" recounting of the situation to Luke in Episode IV. His dialogue makes no mention of Qui Gon Jinn and even seems to suggest that it was he himself who discovered Anakin, and many feel that it originally indicated that Anakin was older than a nine-year-old child upon their first meeting.
* That Qui Gon Jinn was supposed to be Obi-Wan Kenobi's instructor, or if the character was even conceived before writing Episode I. In the opening of Episode V Kenobi's dialogue gives the distinct impression that Yoda was the Jedi Master that instructed him, giving the distinct impression that Yoda was the only master that had ever instructed Kenobi; which of course is contradicted in the prequel trilogy with the introduction of Qui Gon as Kenobi's master. Lucas has argued that Yoda taught all the younglings as evidence in Episode II, however many would argue that Kenobi's choice of words should have been different if Qui Gon was indeed Kenobi's instructor for most of his training and Yoda's teachings were merely for the first few years.
* That Jedi Code's prohibition of "attachments" and thus romantic relationships was conceived prior to Episode II, on the basis that it is a major plot point for the final two films and yet is not even alluded to in Episode I.
* That the stormtroopers were originally intended to be the clones referred to in the Clone Wars as mentioned in Episode IV, despite the lack of specific (as opposed to contextual) indications. Stormtroopers in the original trilogy are made from new clone templates (not Jango Fett) and are also conscripted from normal people.
* That Boba Fett originally had no connection to the Stormtroopers.
* That Obi-Wan was to previously have been in contact with the droids R2 and C-3PO. Many people claim that in A New Hope, Obi-Wan has no memory of the droids. He actually says, "I don't recall owning a droid," which is true, as he never owned C-3PO or R2.
* That Padme was to die as early as she did. In Return of the Jedi, Leia states she has memories of her mother, yet in Revenge of the Sith it is shown that she dies in childbirth. With this in mind, it could be argued that Leia's adoptive mother died just a few years after she and Senator Organa adopted Leia. Possibly Leia had seen her mother using the Force, although this is unknown.
* That Anakin was originally to have built C-3PO, despite his failure to later recognize the droid. Though it is never seen whether or not Vader even came into contact with C-3PO during the original trilogy. It is possible that Vader might never have recognised C-3PO or vice versa, because C-3PO had his memory wiped, and there may be many 3PO Protocol Droids in the galaxy.

Vader does give a clue to recognizing C-3PO in The Empire Strikes Back. When Han is about to be frozen in carbonite, Chewbacca goes berzerk. Boba-Fett raises his blaster to shoot Chewie, but Darth Vader grabs the blaster and points it back down at the floor. This odd glimpse of compassion can be attributed to the fact that Chewbacca has C-3PO in a backpack over his shoulder, and Vader does not want to see his childhood creation damaged further. Chewbacca and C-3PO's lives also could have been spared for a future death used to trigger Luke to the Dark Side, as Vader tells Lando Calrissian to bring Leia and Chewbacca to his ship.

* Regarding narrative perspective. Initially, Lucas claimed that the whole story was to be told from the droid's perspective, but this is not true in any of the movies.
* Regarding Obi-Wan and Yoda's fates in Revenge of the Sith as, in the later films, it is clear that Vader expected them both to be already long-dead. This could also be explained by Order 66, which was supposed to eradicate all of the Jedi, although it is puzzling why Vader would not have demanded to be personally notified should his former master be found.
* That the Prophecy of the Chosen One was always intended to include the explicit prediction that the Chosen One would specifically destroy the Sith. Prior to Episode III this was never mentioned and the Prophecy was described more ambiguously, stating only that the Chosen One would "bring balance to the Force". This led some fans to speculate (prior to Episode III) that Anakin Skywalker would actually bring balance to the Force as a result of his hand in the extermination of the Jedi, because by the time of the Original trilogy there are only two Sith (himself and the Emperor) and two Jedi (Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi, later replaced by Luke Skywalker) in existence. Compared to the prequel era in which thousands of Jedi existed in "imbalance" to only two Sith, some fans interpreted this "two vs. two" scenario as the Force being "balanced", and thus speculated that this was how Anakin would, perhaps without realizing it, fulfill his destiny and bring balance to the Force. Although Episode III does not directly contradict this theory, (even given the amendment about destroying the Sith), the DVD release contains a featurette on the prophecy in which George Lucas effectively contradicts it by focusing on Vader's destruction of the Emperor in Episode VI. It could be explained that the Jedi simply interpreted it as meaning destruction of the Sith.
* Regarding the force being explained with midi-chlorians (Episode I), and that Jedi Knights had a "high count" of them. This claim rendered part of the mysticism of the Force - such as a claim by Yoda in Episode V that all that was needed was to believe in the Force in order to become a Jedi - obsolete. Though Yoda's line in Return of the Jedi, that the force runs strong in the Skywalker family, seems to indicate that the sensitivity to the Force is indeed hereditary.

Critics of the "Grand Plan" theory often refer to comments made by longtime Lucas collaborator (and Empire producer) Gary Kurtz as proof that the direction of the Star Wars saga was not always set in stone and has in fact been significantly altered through the course of production. Kurtz has stated on many occasions that the saga was once planned as a nine part series, rather than the six part series it ultimately became and has hinted that the additional time to tell the story could have been used to address subplots started in The Empire Strikes Back that were severed or heavily truncated after Lucas' decision to wrap up the saga with Return of the Jedi. These include:

* The "other" Yoda references in The Empire Strikes Back, who, according to Kurtz, was to be new character rather than Leia, although this character would still have been Luke's long lost sister.

11/12/2006 3:02:43 PM

^ I agree, please elaborate

11/12/2006 4:27:56 PM

What the hell is Iran going to do to Israel? Anybody? Anybody at all?

They have no navy to speak of and at least two countries between them and Israel through any route they might take. This is all talk. They have next to no retaliatory capability.

11/12/2006 4:37:28 PM

^

11/12/2006 5:20:26 PM

ahhhhhh, but they have a lot of crazy people in lebanon, just itchin to get to those "virginians" that await them in heaven

11/12/2006 9:22:08 PM

Quote :

"What the hell is Iran going to do to Israel? Anybody? Anybody at all? They have no navy to speak of and at least two countries between them and Israel through any route they might take. This is all talk. They have next to no retaliatory capability."

Isn't Syria an ally of Iran? And I think Syria is next to Israel so that could give them a way in.

11/12/2006 9:38:37 PM

I'd mostly lean towards the incident being incendiary to the region.

Iran doesn't exactly have an awesome Air Force.

11/12/2006 9:41:44 PM

Quote :

"i haven't really figure this chick out yet"

Quote :

"its interesting because I'm sure she would shit a brick if the USA started expanding its nuclear capability but america's enemy.... that's different! they have a right to go nuclear (non-proliferation treaty notwithstanding)"

Yeah, it's almost a pryderi, randy, and salisburyboy mix. That has to be one crazy bitch (and not the good crazy).

[Edited on November 12, 2006 at 10:08 PM. Reason : agh!]

11/12/2006 10:07:18 PM

[Sign Out, My Account]
Fantasy HomeSports Home

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: You are reading this message either because you do not have a standards-compliant browser, or because you can not see our css files.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Yahoo! Fantasy Sports: Skip to Content Skip to Section Navigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Sports Fantasy BasketballHome Help Rules Viewing Info for League: Charlotte Ballers Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Basketball Main Navigation
League My Team Players News & Expert Advice Draft Central Launch StatTracker® News & Expert Advice Section Navigation
Overview Player Notes Injury Reports Keys to Success Overview
Latest Fantasy Player Notes View Player Notes Index
My Players Free Agents
Andrei Kirilenko
Michael Redd
Dwyane Wade
Emeka Okafor
Richard Jefferson
View All

Andrei Kirilenko (Uta - SF,PF)
NEWS: Despite its 113-111 win over Milwaukee on Saturday night, Utah received some bad news when Kirilenko sprained his right ankle midway through the second quarter after rolling the ankle going for a loose ball. He was unable to return to the... More

Michael Redd (Mil - SG,SF)
NEWS: Redd had a monster game for Milwaukee on Saturday night, but the Bucks still lost to Utah 113-111 on a last-second shot. The shooting guard scored 57 points _ 39 in the second half _ to break Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's franchise record of 55, set... More

Dwyane Wade (Mia - PG,SG)
NEWS: Wade scored 34 points and had 10 assists in the Heat's 113-106 win over the Nets on Friday. It was the second time this season he earned a double-double. VIEW: Wade is averaging 25.4 points and 7.0 assists through five games.

Emeka Okafor (Cha - PF,C)
NEWS: Okafor had 20 points, 15 rebounds and three blocks but it wasn't enough as Charlotte lost 99-85 to Seattle on Friday night. It was the second strong game in a row for the center-forward. He had 28 points and a career-high 18 rebounds in... More

Richard Jefferson (NJ - SF)
NEWS: Jefferson left in the third quarter of New Jersey's 113-106 loss to Miami on Friday with a left ankle injury. He suffered the injury when he went up for a jump shot and landed on the foot of Miami's Shaquille O'Neal. He tried to come back,... More

InjuriesView AllPlayer Injury Status Effective
Wally Szczerbiak (Bos - SG,SF) Strained lower back Nov 11, 2006
Chris Mihm (LAL - PF,C) Right ankle surgery - out indefinitely Nov 10, 2006
Raja Bell (Pho - SG) Bruised ribs Nov 10, 2006
Raymond Felton (Cha - PG) Bruised ribs Nov 10, 2006
Richard Jefferson (NJ - SF) Left ankle Nov 10, 2006

Keys to SuccessView AllPlayer Action Percent Owner
Shawn Marion (Pho - SF,PF) 69.8 Fluid Agility
Lamar Odom (LAL - SF,PF) 49.4 Ballyntine Ballers
Mehmet Okur (Uta - PF,C) 29.4 Ballyntine Ballers
Chauncey Billups (Det - PG) 26.2 DoubleTheHoe'n
Jermaine O'Neal (Ind - PF,C) 25.0 BootCamp

Note: The list of players who appear most often on the top 500 Public League teams in Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Basketball
ADVERTISEMENT


Yahoo! Sports Fantasy BasketballYahoo! Sports Fantasy Experts
Brandon Funston
Big Board: Basketball
Matt Buser
Big Picture: Curry Line
NBA Skinny: Abhorrent Boris
Yahoo! Sports SportstreamTop 5 Fantasy Picks
Fantasy Draft Sleepers
Do Not Draft These 5
Kerr: Next NBA Stars
Kerr: Top Trade Rumors
Top NBA Headlines
Vertical leap
Nets 105, Wizards 93, OT
Nuggets 108, Bobcats 101
Clippers 92, Hornets 76
Warriors 111, Pistons 79
All NBA Teams Standings Players
Search: Yahoo! Sports Yahoo! News The Web for
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. | Copyright/IP Policy | Terms of Service | Help
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy

11/12/2006 10:17:45 PM

i do remember hearing about anakin and obi wan fighting on a 'volcano planet' like in the 1980s or something

11/12/2006 10:19:00 PM

You guys have obviously never heard of missiles. And troops could easily sneak throught the mess of a land we call Iraq.

11/12/2006 10:34:33 PM

no i feel you

it only took one x-wing and a strategically fired proton torpedo to take out the first death star

and that thing was HUGE

11/12/2006 10:36:44 PM

Quote :

"ahhhhhh, but they have a lot of crazy people in lebanon"

They've demonstrated that they can hold their own in a defensive war where they know the terrain and can blend in with the local population. That is very different from waging an offensive war against Israel.

Quote :

"Isn't Syria an ally of Iran? And I think Syria is next to Israel so that could give them a way in."

You're right that Syria and Iran tend to side together in this matter and you're right that Syria has a border with Israel. However, Iran still has no way of getting guys into Syria without passing over Iraq, and Israel will have a field day destroying a conventional army like Syria's (which they've done, what, three, four times before?)

Quote :

"You guys have obviously never heard of missiles. And troops could easily sneak throught the mess of a land we call Iraq."

Small numbers of fighters might be able to get through Iraq, but certainly not anything that would rightfully be called "troops." Further, if they tried it, we'd find out, and that might not mean war with Iran, but it would damn sure mean that the flow got clamped on, hard.

Second, what is Iran's missile arsenal like? Small in number, short in range, and limited in reliability. Beyond that Israel has antimissile defenses and, if nothing else, a much stronger retaliatory capacity.

If Iran goes to town, it might bloody Israel, but it will pay heavily in turn, and whatever it acheives will not be rightfully called a victory.

11/13/2006 3:16:18 AM

Quote :

" Quote : "ahhhhhh, but they have a lot of crazy people in lebanon" They've demonstrated that they can hold their own in a defensive war where they know the terrain and can blend in with the local population. That is very different from waging an offensive war against Israel."

Actually, its one in the same. Rockets anyone?

The supply lines would be greater than ever. Israel's idea of defense is offense anyway. No way they bunker down and wait to play defense while being rocketed.

Quote :

"You're right that Syria and Iran tend to side together in this matter and you're right that Syria has a border with Israel. However, Iran still has no way of getting guys into Syria without passing over Iraq, and Israel will have a field day destroying a conventional army like Syria's (which they've done, what, three, four times before?)"

They won't conventionally move people through Iraq. They won't have uniforms and marching formations either. You have a typical gop problem if you think Iraq is secure enough to keep anyone from sneaking through with Iran's guitar sized weapons that are capable of taking out any tank on the planet.

Iran would make Hezbollah look like rookies at what they do best. Hezbollah is like Iran's pet or little kid. Even syria is much more dangerous than Hezbollah.

Quote :

" Second, what is Iran's missile arsenal like? Small in number, short in range, and limited in reliability. Beyond that Israel has antimissile defenses and, if nothing else, a much stronger retaliatory capacity. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_missile_forces
very sophisticated and capable of wreaking havoc on israel.

Antimissile defense is hit or miss and very unreliable. We can't even shoot down our own tests missiles what makes you think Israel can shoot down Iranian missiles they know nothing about when the sky is full of rockets missiles and aircraft.

You also assume Iran has no airforce but they are developing competitive air power as each day passes. By the time the point of no return on building a nuclear weapon comes, Iran will have a fleet of subsonic stealth jets (like the shafaq +more) and new fighters as well.(that and the fact that Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear program without a fullscale invasion (duplicate underground facilities) would leave Iran with a possible nuclear weapon even after being attacked)

Israel would be fighting a multifront war against many enemies that don't care if they die(with criticism from most of the world). That kind of thing in this day and age is much different than the previous wars where they fought traditional enemies with uniformed standing armies and death trap vehicles.

The hezbollah thing is proof Israel would be in trouble. It's like expecting your roof to hold for an upcoming hurricane season after leaking a bit during a light shower.

The largest military in the world and many of them willling to die to carry out a mission with growing economic and sheer support from places like Russia and maybe China is kind of a big deal.

11/13/2006 6:26:56 PM

Quote :

"The hezbollah thing is proof Israel would be in trouble. "

pray tell, what was the "hezbollah thing" - hate to break it to you, but israel kicked their asses and would've destroyed them entirely if they weren't so humanitarian.

11/13/2006 8:16:55 PM

Quote :

"Actually, its one in the same. Rockets anyone?"

The real damage of those rockets was fairly small, and in and of themselves their launches did not qualify as an "offensive war."

Quote :

"You have a typical gop problem if you think Iraq is secure enough to keep anyone from sneaking through with Iran's guitar sized weapons that are capable of taking out any tank on the planet."

I'm not denying that people would get through if they really wanted to. But we will catch some of them, and that, in turn, will cause us to take measures against Iran. Remember that many Iraqis are not what you'd call friends of that country.

And how expensive is it to send guys across what amounts to hostile territory only a few at a time? How effective is it? The answers are "relatively expensive" and "not very," respectively. Take into account:

1) US forces
2) Iraqi citizens who don't like Iranians in general and certainly not Iranians sneaking through their country under arms
3) You have to give these guys enough money to feed and transport themselves across Iraq and part of Syria (assuming Syria even participates, which isn't a given)
4) You have to have a military infrastructure and organization in place throughout this trek and ready to bring everyone together at the end of it

etc.

Sneaking an army across like that just isn't cost-effective. They won't do it.

Quote :

"Iran would make Hezbollah look like rookies at what they do best."

I beg to differ. Iran's only troops with combat experience got it almost twenty years ago, so even the youngest veterans would be pushing forty. And even they only have experience with a conventional war against older weapons and an incompetent foe.

Hezbollah, by contrast, has been pretty actively engaged in unconventional warfare for as long as it has been around, and they know the area.

Quote :

"Antimissile defense is hit or miss and very unreliable. We can't even shoot down our own tests missiles what makes you think Israel can shoot down Iranian missiles they know nothing about when the sky is full of rockets missiles and aircraft."

We shot down plenty of scuds, and that seems to be what Iran's missile forces are largely based on. Besides, the Israelis are arguably ahead of us in this regard, they have a smaller area to protect, and a vastly superior air force that, properly used, could demolish larger-range missile platforms. (Remember, the shit hezbollah was using was small and easier to hide)

Quote :

"You also assume Iran has no airforce"

No, I assume that they have an inferior air force, which they do. Israel arguably has the best in the world. Iran has some aging Russian crap.

Quote :

"Iran will have a fleet of subsonic stealth jets (like the shafaq +more) and new fighters as well."

O RLY? Based on what?

Besides, if Iran flies aircraft over American or NATO airspace, we'll certainly retaliate, and if Israel couldn't take care of the Iranian Air Force (which they could), then you bet your ass we can.

Quote :

"(that and the fact that Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear program without a fullscale invasion (duplicate underground facilities) would leave Iran with a possible nuclear weapon even after being attacked)"

At most a couple of untested weapons -- because if they test one, my money says massive strike by Israel that includes its own nuclear arsenal.

Quote :

"Israel would be fighting a multifront war against many enemies that don't care if they die"

You seem to have Syria and Iran's military forces confused with Hezbollah and Hamas. And it'd only be one front, a relatively narrow one with Syria. I'd really like to see your case for why Egypt will throw away billions in US aid to join a fight that they've lost at several times before.

Quote :

"The hezbollah thing is proof Israel would be in trouble."

That -- and your assertion that Israel can't play defense -- is just silly. There's a huge difference between defending your turf and attacking somebody elses.

11/13/2006 8:37:55 PM

not too mention that a few rockets and terrorist attacks are far from "emphatic, crushing and immediate."

11/13/2006 9:23:32 PM

Quote :

"The real damage of those rockets was fairly small, and in and of themselves their launches did not qualify as an "offensive war.""

Thats the beauty of the way war would have to be waged. They dont need to have a scorched earth kinda war. Isreal doesnt have any sort of easy money, they have to maintain an economy. And for a while now, all of this uncertaintity and conflict has created pretty decent downturn. (the last time i looked).

Quote :

"And how expensive is it to send guys across what amounts to hostile territory only a few at a time? How effective is it? The answers are "relatively expensive" and "not very," respectively. Take into account: 1) US forces 2) Iraqi citizens who don't like Iranians in general and certainly not Iranians sneaking through their country under arms 3) You have to give these guys enough money to feed and transport themselves across Iraq and part of Syria (assuming Syria even participates, which isn't a given) 4) You have to have a military infrastructure and organization in place throughout this trek and ready to bring everyone together at the end of it etc. "

1. Us forces may not be there for too much longer w/ the sort of presence we have now. by that i mean 1 year out. not to mention we are currently in quite a bit of chaos.
2. Shiites ( from what i gather) arent exactly anti-iran. Granted theres always nationalism, but religion seems to run deeper. Sadaam was sunni, so the previous war was slightly different.
3. True... syria may not.
4. True.... cant deny that, but iran may not need to fully invade and destroy now, it could wage a multi year seige of sorts. cause obviously we cant effectivly wage one on iran on behalf of isreal or even our own interests b/c of one main thing OIL.

Quote :

"We shot down plenty of scuds, and that seems to be what Iran's missile forces are largely based on."

Things have changed quite dramatically in 10 years, tech change in the past 10-15 has been pretty exponental, so history may not be exactly the best example to use.


My main point, in the end, is that they dont need to directly win NOW, if they upped their "undercover" support of insurgents and the ilk, it would devestate isreal. slowely they would win out, as your fond of saying the dilialectic is on their side.

11/13/2006 10:10:09 PM

we give them plenty of money, theyll be fine

11/13/2006 10:14:43 PM

^i would think think that be we in det son

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 10:30 PM. Reason : how long can we keep givin them and africa money when we aint even got soshal scurity]

11/13/2006 10:29:41 PM

sup cxmai

11/13/2006 10:50:38 PM

^^what the fuck?

11/13/2006 11:16:56 PM

Oh, dhiren...

Quote :

"Isreal doesnt have any sort of easy money"

Bullshit. They have self-sufficient economy plus tons of free (the easiest of all!) money from the US.

1) We'll be there to some degree for a long time coming. We've built a lot of permanent bases. We might cut back, but we aren't leaving.
2) Shi'ites aren't all that lives in Iraq, even in any given region. And even shi'ites aren't strictly pro-Iranian. Remember, Iranians are nationalists first -- I only have Dr. Khater to go off of right now, but he has several times cited surveys that say 70% of Iranians think of themselves as Iranians first, Muslims second. That makes sense. Iranians have a much longer and more cohesive history as a nation to work with. Few, if any, Iraqis want to become part of a new Persian empire.
3) You're damn right. Syria has tangoed with Israel three official times now and gotten their ass handed to them every time. They have a decent conventional army, but Israel's is superior. Besides, paramilitary armies are far, far better suited to defense.
4) Iran will lose a long-term conflict because eventually Israel's plight, at worst, will boil down to survival. And when it does, they'll launch all 80 or so nukes they have at whoever looks threatening. Iran might build a bomb by that point. They will not build 80. Not to mention, as much as the world dislikes Israel, its eradication (or even the real potential for it) will probably cause a shift of opinion.

And we will fight on behalf of Israel in that situation, one because of the huge lobby, and two because we're not exactly buddies with Tehran.

Quote :

"Things have changed quite dramatically in 10 years, tech change in the past 10-15 has been pretty exponental, so history may not be exactly the best example to use."

I am willing to bet that Israel's antimissile technology has developed faster than Iran's missile capacity.

11/14/2006 12:01:07 AM

Quote :

"Bullshit. They have self-sufficient economy plus tons of free (the easiest of all!) money from the US."

Yes we give them quite a bit... but not enough to sustain them, and if we keep doing this were gonna go down the tubes eventually.... that self sufficient economy is exactly that, one that i could see being the ideal kind in a peaceful, or even semi-peaceful world. However if your under a prolonged siege of sorts, from suicide bombers, sabotage, and general unrest its not gonna last. I think even history has proven this. Investment can get spooked, and w/o investment isreal doesnt have oil to fall back on. Iran does. lots of it.

Quote :

"2) Shi'ites aren't all that lives in Iraq, even in any given region. And even shi'ites aren't strictly pro-Iranian. Remember, Iranians are nationalists first -- I only have Dr. Khater to go off of right now, but he has several times cited surveys that say 70% of Iranians think of themselves as Iranians first, Muslims second. That makes sense. Iranians have a much longer and more cohesive history as a nation to work with. Few, if any, Iraqis want to become part of a new Persian empire."

Not to say that the i know more than the guy with a phd, but even if that is the case, it wouldnt matter what the iranians thought. at the moment the shiite's are having their country ripped apart, in my mind i see them becoming closer to iran due to the fact that it would like ohhh theres iran there also shiite, they can help us. Some propaganda on iran's part and i could see iraqi's being convinced to help them out.

Quote :

"3) You're damn right. Syria has tangoed with Israel three official times now and gotten their ass handed to them every time. They have a decent conventional army, but Israel's is superior. Besides, paramilitary armies are far, far better suited to defense."

Never really thought syria was gonna do much but meddle anyway. in the end i only they iran and syria work together cause its in their mutual benefit, not b/c they have some innate love for each other.

Quote :

"4) Iran will lose a long-term conflict because eventually Israel's plight, at worst, will boil down to survival. And when it does, they'll launch all 80 or so nukes they have at whoever looks threatening. Iran might build a bomb by that point. They will not build 80. Not to mention, as much as the world dislikes Israel, its eradication (or even the real potential for it) will probably cause a shift of opinion. "

But that would mean there is a cut off point at which point isreal can say ohh its worth launchin nukes. If invaded, you know at what point youve lost. If your economy is slowely losin steam, launching nukes is even harder. b/c eventually you just become weaker. yes they may never be "taken" over, in any decent time frame b/c of our support, but they can be hobbled. at that point they are at the will of their area.

As its shown everywhere, its easier to catch up, than it is to keep the gap. technologically, isreal may be superior, but if iran keeps a low-level conflict like this going, and then turns around and wisely spends its oil money, ( which i think they have yet to do) they would easily narrow if not eliminate that gap substantially.

also anti-missle tech ( from my undertanding) does you no good when multiple missiles come in at once. if a hundred crappy ones are launched they wont all be hit.

11/14/2006 7:27:19 AM

Quote :

"4) Iran will lose a long-term conflict because eventually Israel's plight, at worst, will boil down to survival. And when it does, they'll launch all 80 or so nukes they have at whoever looks threatening. Iran might build a bomb by that point. They will not build 80. Not to mention, as much as the world dislikes Israel, its eradication (or even the real potential for it) will probably cause a shift of opinion."

The world opinion will not shift for Israel's favor if they provoke a war with a preemptive strike. The world also won't stand for Israel launching a bunch of nukes just because Iran has built one. How do you think China will react to most of their oil being cutoff? China wants to be friends with Iran for that. If Israel flattened Iran it would cause a global economic crisis.

It's proven in history Shi'ites rather band together with other shiites they don't even like to work against a common evil and fight each other later.

Also note, as things go more to a democratic cycle in the U.S. over the next four years, Israeli support is going to die down a bit. Like someone mentioned, we have our own debt, and social security to worry about. The longer time goes on the worse it will get for Israel, increasing support for Iran from others and decreasing support for Israel from even the U.S. All while the technology gap shrinks.

Sure, Israel has the military power, but can they deal with everybody at once, including harsh global criticism.

11/14/2006 8:28:31 AM

You did notice that most Jews are democrats, didn't you?

11/14/2006 8:54:08 AM

I don't know who you are

I assume just another alias troll


but I hope you die, in a fiery car crash

11/14/2006 9:01:21 AM

Me or cathoalias?

11/14/2006 9:02:22 AM

anakin skywalker

11/14/2006 9:14:41 AM

^^^^ neocons

11/14/2006 9:45:17 AM

lol


not you big mims

11/14/2006 10:17:18 AM

lol, ok good.

Big Mims...I like the sound of that. I had been referring to my cock as that for some time, but I never thought about applying it to the whole shebang.

11/14/2006 10:20:55 AM

Although Lucas' revisionism was most dramatically evident in the 1997 Special Editions, the filmmaker's tendency to retroactively tinker with his already-released films has existed both before and since.

Most commonly known of his pre-Special Edition changes is the fact that in the original theatrical release of the first Star Wars the opening crawl did not include the now-familiar heading "Episode IV - A New Hope". This was later added to early re-releases of the film and has been present for so long ever since that many younger viewers are unaware of its original absence.

With fans much more aware of Lucas' revisionism since the Special Editions, subsequent changes have been far better publicized within Star Wars fandom. The DVD and subsequent digital cinematic screenings of Episodes I and II have included minor changes from their original theatrical versions. In one of the Senate scenes in Episode I the Twi'lek senator Orn Free Taa originally shared his senate pod with humans, but for the DVD they were replaced with members of his own species. In the arena confrontation between Mace Windu and Jango Fett in Episode II the DVD added sparks and exhaust plumes to Fett's jetpack to indicate that it was damaged when he was nearly trampled by the Reek beast, thus providing an explanation for why the bounty hunter failed to simply fly away before the Jedi could behead him.

The 2004 DVD release of the original trilogy used many of the changes from the earlier Special Editions, in some cases with further enhancement to the 1997 additions, such as a revised version of the CGI Jabba the Hutt in Episode IV and alterations to the Coruscant skyline in Episode VI to include the prequel-era Jedi Temple and Galactic Senate buildings. However, there were various other entirely new changes, such as substituting the original Emperor (played by an unknown actress and voiced by Clive Revill) seen in Episode V with new footage of Ian McDiarmid; similarly, Sebastian Shaw was replaced by Hayden Christensen as the Force Ghost of Anakin Skywalker at the end of Episode VI. Both elements were shot during the making of Episode III.

It has been officially stated by Lucasfilm (and a clip is shown on the Episode III DVD) that future re-releases of Episode I will replace the puppet Yoda with the CGI model used in the later two prequels.

The issue of revisionism which perturbs many fans is a complex one. On an aesthetic level, many feel that the changes are jarring, especially when the CGI additions to the original trilogy appear incongruous with the more old-fashioned special-effects techniques which dominate the films.

Perhaps more importantly, many fans feel that Lucas altering his films is not actually his right, that he is "tampering with" them rather than exercising creative control, and that once released they "belong" to the public consciousness. This perspective is satirically but nevertheless earnestly argued in the South Park episode Free Hat.

It is important to remember that the same revisionism can be found outside the Star Wars franchise. In the 2005 DVD release of THX-1138, George Lucas revisioned his debut movie with new special effects and new scenes.

11/14/2006 2:10:39 PM

Ladies and gentleman, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca… LIVES …on the planet Endor. Now think about that. That does NOT MAKE SENSE. Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE!

11/14/2006 2:23:17 PM

Early criticism was caused by the Ewoks in the final film of the original trilogy, Return of the Jedi. These teddy bear-like primitives featured prominently in Return of the Jedi and are the major protagonists of the final ground battle. Some felt that the Ewoks were a jarringly childish addition to a franchise that had many adult fans, and furthermore found it implausible that these furry tribespeople could overcome the implacable Empire and their armored, high-tech stormtroopers. Some believe that the entire trilogy loses all credibility at this point.

Some did not object to the Ewok species or the creatures' role in the film, but merely to the uncharacteristicly sloppy special effects that represented them. Even in close-up shots their eyes did not open or close, nor have pupils, and at times the seams of their costumes were visible. This was in stark contrast with the aliens in Jabba's palace which often employed sophisticated animatronic puppets for close-up shots which depicted facial muscles, opening and closing eye-lids and even sweat. It was hard for many to imagine that these were anything but dwarfs dressed in furry suits after witnessing the astonishingly vivid and life-like creatures in the first half of the film.

These criticisms do not take into account the fact that the third movie of the original franchise was subjected to huge time and money constraints and at times it seemed like it was about to be called off, evidently these hindrances were more stringent when it came to shoot the Endor part of the movie, affecting the funds with which to depict the furry aliens.

In the commentary for the film in the 2004 DVD release, Lucas describes the Ewoks as not being able to fight against the Imperial forces at first then slowly overcoming them. He cites the Vietnam war as an example of an army defeating a technologically superior foe.

11/14/2006 2:38:04 PM

cathocutie is completely nuts and in no way grounded in reality

i didn't lock it at first, in case someone wanted to seriously argue it...it looks like the few who did have now lost interest, so i'm locking it


this is a warning to all those trolling this thread, though:

if you do it again, i will suspend you. i don't care how much the thread sucks--your job isn't to post disruptive bullshit in it. if you don't like it and don't want to argue it, stay the fuck out of it.

11/14/2006 3:20:57 PM