Its Iran

[local 12 proud]

I dont think Israel is going to set by and let Iran build Nuclear weapons, Irregardless of what the rest of the world thinks!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I dont think Israel is going to set by and let Iran build Nuclear weapons, Irregardless of what the rest of the world thinks!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Yeah, I think you are right (unless you were using the word "irregardless" as a double negative, in which case, I would disagree with your statement).

Israel is too close to Iran to not give a darn. They will ask western countries to silently back their actions first, but if the western countries were too slow, Israel will act on its own.

 

[tech2101]

I dont think Israel is going to set by and let Iran build Nuclear weapons, Irregardless of what the rest of the world thinks!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

I agree 100% with that statement.

The question is, are we going to be overtly involved or covertly involved in helping the Israelis deter Iran. There is already a huge, behind the scenes diplomatic effort going on in Iran. Only time will tell if it is working.

When Ahmadinejad is bounced from office, we will see how the rhetoric changes.

 

[Garfield1966]

There is a good argument that the hit on Syria a week ago was a ry run for Iran and a subtle message to Iran that Israel could be in and out before Iran knew what happened. Supposedly Syria's defense system is much stronger than Irans and given that Syria did not know what happened till after Israel already took out the target and was heading out.

It will be interesting. My guess is the will be quite a bit of back channel talking to keep Israel in check. I don't think anyone wants to see what happens if Israel goes into Iran alone.

Back in Gulf I, everyone told Israel to sit back, bite te bullet and let the coalition take care of it. No one wanted to see Israel start WW III in the gulf and I am guessing the same sentiment exists now. I would bet there are a bunch of puckered assh&les siting around right now wondering who will blink first.

 

[delldude]

I saw an interesting piece on CNN a few days ago.

In Iran there is a TV series on called "Zero Degree Turn". Apparently it is a very popular program and has a large viewing audience. The topic of the program is the holocaust. It centers around a man and a woman. The woman is jewish and the man is Iranian. They fall in love and … If you do a search there is quite a bit of material out there.

Very touching show for the kiddies

Such nice,peaceful people......

During a May 7 episode of Muslim Woman Magazine, anchorwoman Doaa 'Amer asks her special guest, a 3-year-old girl named Basmallah, a series of questions the youngster quickly and calmly answers.

"Are you familiar with the Jews?" Amer asks.

The girl says yes, and says she does not like them "because…they’re apes and pigs."

"Who said so?" the anchor asks. "Our God," the girl replies, adding that Allah says this "in the Quran."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views place him and the Iranian regime among the foremost threats to Jews and the state of Israel.



Ahmadinejad repeatedly demonizes the state of Israel and openly calls for its destruction at every opportunity. Most notoriously, he described Israel as a "fake regime" that "must be wiped off the map."



He termed Zionists "the most detested people in all humanity" and called the extermination of six million Jews during World War II "a myth," claiming that Jews have played up Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust in a bid to extort sympathy for Israel from European governments.

 

[local 12 proud]

There is a good argument that the hit on Syria a week ago was a ry run for Iran and a subtle message to Iran that Israel could be in and out before Iran knew what happened. Supposedly Syria's defense system is much stronger than Irans and given that Syria did not know what happened till after Israel already took out the target and was heading out.

It will be interesting. My guess is the will be quite a bit of back channel talking to keep Israel in check. I don't think anyone wants to see what happens if Israel goes into Iran alone.

Back in Gulf I, everyone told Israel to sit back, bite te bullet and let the coalition take care of it. No one wanted to see Israel start WW III in the gulf and I am guessing the same sentiment exists now. I would bet there are a bunch of puckered assh&les siting around right now wondering who will blink first.

Probably not far off Garfy!

BTW...before you PM Me about my use of 'Proper English' first remove the beam from your own eye!

PS,,, Im not proper nor am I English!!!!!!

 

[UAL_TECH]

When Ahmadinejad is bounced from office, we will see how the rhetoric changes.

I doubt that will ever happen. There is a very different social, tribal concept in the ME that would simply not allow it. I have little doubt that the Islamic puppet Ahmadinejad is more or less pandering to the Mullahs that pull his strings. There is a ‘silent’ majority that would embrace greater freedoms and autonomy, but when put to the test, will disavow any such thoughts and join the masses in condemning any such concept.

It’s called ‘absolute power’.
Ahmadinejad does not have this power and neither do the Iranian people.

B) UT

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Probably not far off Garfy!

BTW...before you PM Me about my use of 'Proper English' first remove the beam from your own eye!

PS,,, Im not proper nor am I English!!!!!!

Local,

I understand that postings on message boards do not need to use proper English. We all make lackadaisical attempts when it comes to proper syntax, spelling, etc.

But, to what I think is Garfield's point, your last posting was uncertain as to what you meant. Many people use the erroneous term "irregardless" as a double negative. If that was your intended use, then it would mean the exact opposite of what I thought it meant. But, I believe that your use of the term was to use it as meaning "regardless." And if that was the case, then I agree with your stance. If you meant to use it as the double negative, then I would disagree.

If I am mistaken, please correct me.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Local,

I understand that postings on message boards do not need to use proper English. We all make lackadaisical attempts when it comes to proper syntax, spelling, etc.

But, to what I think is Garfield's point, your last posting was uncertain as to what you meant. Many people use the erroneous term "irregardless" as a double negative. If that was your intended use, then it would mean the exact opposite of what I thought it meant. But, I believe that your use of the term was to use it as meaning "regardless." And if that was the case, then I agree with your stance. If you meant to use it as the double negative, then I would disagree.

If I am mistaken, please correct me.

:blink: UT

 

[UAL_TECH]

:blink: UT

Not to be the 'Laughing Pig' but you well know that the general populace equates the 'irregardless' vernacular to equate to the 'regardless' meaning. It is consistently considered the same (Regardless and IrRegardless) .

This argument is based on semantics that is understood pretty much world wide.

Don't be a snob, go with the flow.........

B) UT

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Not to be the 'Laughing Pig' but you well know that the general populace equates the 'irregardless' vernacular to equate to the 'regardless' meaning. It is consistently considered the same (Regardless and IrRegardless) .

This argument is based on semantics that is understood pretty much world wide.

Don't be a snob, go with the flow.........

B) UT

I was not being a snob. It was not meant as slam against Local. I never poke fun at other's syntax, semantics, or spelling. I told him that is what I thought it meant. But in many circles, including literary circles, the erroneous term "irregardless" can take on a whole new meaning. I wanted a clarification, because if he intended to use it as I thought he did, then i agree with him.

Why are you making a big deal as to my asking for a clarification of what someone meant? I assume that people want to be clearly understood when they communicate with others... and I wanted to make sure that I clearly understood his point. Apparently, the choice of words struck another person as odd because Local made reference to another person PM'ing in regards to the post.

I am not arguing as you suggest; I simply wanted a clarification from LOCAL.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I dont think Israel is going to set by and let Iran build Nuclear weapons, Irregardless of what the rest of the world thinks!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Local,

Please the Lily.
Regardless/Irregardless.....

B) UT
----------------------------
Edited By Me B)

Regardless (without regard)
Irregard (Not regarding/disregard)
Irregardless = (Disregard without regard)
Not really a double negative as the prefix ‘ir’ infers to ‘not’ (Dis) and the suffix ‘less’ refers to without.
Does the word ’Irregardless’ really mean:
To ignore a regard and consider the regard as nonexistent?
(Never important/therefore never existed)
Is this where 'DISSED' came from?



B) UT

 

[Smitty]

Local,

Please the Lily.
Regardless/Irregardless.....

B) UT
----------------------------
Edited By Me B)

Regardless (without regard)
Irregard (Not regarding/disregard)
Irregardless = (Disregard without regard)
Not really a double negative as the prefix ‘ir’ infers to ‘not’ (Dis) and the suffix ‘less’ refers to without.
Does the word ’Irregardless’ really mean:
To ignore a regard and consider the regard as nonexistent?
(Never important/therefore never existed)
Is this where 'DISSED' came from?



B) UT

wow, UAL_tiff, you can use wikipedia.

oops wait, you misquote it:

"The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the consensus among references is that it is a blend of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words. By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."[1]. (Cf. inflammable, flammable.) However, such double negatives are already found in the language in such words as debone and unravel.

Irregardless is primarily found in North America, most notably in Boston and surrounding areas, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana. Barely a decade later, the usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?"[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

no. a diss occurs when you post something that is supposed to burn someone else but you only burn yourself by posting something stupid.

irregardless of your self diss and your guys stupid argument this has now become the dumbest topic ever including this post

 

[UAL_TECH]

wow, UAL_tiff, you can use wikipedia.

oops wait, you misquote it:

"The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the consensus among references is that it is a blend of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words. By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."[1]. (Cf. inflammable, flammable.) However, such double negatives are already found in the language in such words as debone and unravel.

Irregardless is primarily found in North America, most notably in Boston and surrounding areas, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana. Barely a decade later, the usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?"[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

no. a diss occurs when you post something that is supposed to burn someone else but you only burn yourself by posting something stupid.

irregardless of your self diss and your guys stupid argument this has now become the dumbest topic ever including this post

Shitty,

Common sense and Webster.
"wikipedia" is too dynamic and influenced by external political entities to make it a viable resource.
When in doubt, I hit the hard copies of Webster and Britannica.
Maybe you should try the same.

B) UT

 

[Garfield1966]

Mean while ....

As far as I am concerned, attacking Iran will be about as successful as invading Iraq was. The repercussions will be quite dramatic and far reaching. I would be willing to bet that Iran would reach out to Israel (and I don't think it will be for a group hug. They will more than likely reach out for our troops in Iraq as well.

If the world is indeed fearful of Iran becoming nuclear power, then this seems like it would be a perfect opportunity to work together to nudge Iran in the right direction. From what I have hear, the people want it, its the government that is the problem. Sounds similar to Russia. War is the result of a diplomatic failure. Iraq has been a huge failure both militarily and economically. Why would anyone think Iran wil turn out better?