Iran: High-speed underwater missile test-fired

[Osiris_x11]

Don King, where are you?

Ever beat-the-snot outta an inferior opponent in an attempt to acquire what they possess but you want? Then you had to rationalize to others the basis of your actions? Just curious.

This has become a cliche', as it's rather routine...

- Iran possesses something. Hush-hush deals w/ India/China for pipelines, as well.
- US wants to acquire this, ie. have access to.
- Iran is very inferior to US militarily.
- US can not justifiably exert it's power on Iran.
- Iran is built-up to be a dangerous 'State w/ advanced military weaponry.
- World now perceives Iran as potentially hostile nation.
- US/others enforce regime change in Iran; use of force is seen to be acceptable as Iran being a formidable, unpredictable, dangerous rogue nation.
- US has desired decision-makers in Tehran.

Other 'unseen' changes resulting:

* polarization of the 'Shia majority in Iraq, much to the satisfaction of the Sunni Arab minority, ie. Ex-Saddam Ba'ath entourage.
* Hizbullah weakening in Lebanon, as Iranian backing would diminish.
* Only national threat to Israel is neutralized


In the past, Iraq's army was hyped-up (ie. Republican Guard, 3-4,000 modern tanks, Scud missiles, 'super' gun, MiG-29's, 2million men in uniform, etc'...). North Korea's military has been hyped-up to justify troop placement in South Korea near the DMZ of 54th parallel. China's phenomenal economic growth, Silkworm anti-ship missile, and 4million-man+ army has been hyped-up, etc'. This missile is widely believed to be what the Iranian's might be 'loosely' referring to as they have acquired analogous versions of this from USSR/China in the past. Ironically, Saddam-led Iraq possessed the French-made Exocet anti-ship cruise missile which is devastatingly accurate, proving so in the Falkland's war and sadly later in the Iran-Iraq war when mistakingly fired into the USS Stark. Iran doesn't have this missile, a proven & effective weapon.

 

[WingZ]

Re: Don King, where are you?

Ever beat-the-snot outta an inferior opponent in an attempt to acquire what they possess but you want? Then you had to rationalize to others the basis of your actions? Just curious.

This has become a cliche', as it's rather routine...

- Iran possesses something. Hush-hush deals w/ India/China for pipelines, as well.
- US wants to acquire this, ie. have access to.
- Iran is very inferior to US militarily.
- US can not justifiably exert it's power on Iran.
- Iran is built-up to be a dangerous 'State w/ advanced military weaponry.
- World now perceives Iran as potentially hostile nation.
- US/others enforce regime change in Iran; use of force is seen to be acceptable as Iran being a formidable, unpredictable, dangerous rogue nation.
- US has desired decision-makers in Tehran.

Other 'unseen' changes resulting:

* polarization of the 'Shia majority in Iraq, much to the satisfaction of the Sunni Arab minority, ie. Ex-Saddam Ba'ath entourage.
* Hizbullah weakening in Lebanon, as Iranian backing would diminish.
* Only national threat to Israel is neutralized


In the past, Iraq's army was hyped-up (ie. Republican Guard, 3-4,000 modern tanks, Scud missiles, 'super' gun, MiG-29's, 2million men in uniform, etc'...). North Korea's military has been hyped-up to justify troop placement in South Korea near the DMZ of 54th parallel. China's phenomenal economic growth, Silkworm anti-ship missile, and 4million-man+ army has been hyped-up, etc'. This missile is widely believed to be what the Iranian's might be 'loosely' referring to as they have acquired analogous versions of this from USSR/China in the past. Ironically, Saddam-led Iraq possessed the French-made Exocet anti-ship cruise missile which is devastatingly accurate, proving so in the Falkland's war and sadly later in the Iran-Iraq war when mistakingly fired into the USS Stark. Iran doesn't have this missile, a proven & effective weapon.

Funny how anyone we don't like is "now" the ultimate threat

Thankfully ( sarcasm ) we're too broke to do anything , but maybe we can use the WMD's we swore to the world were in Iraq to attack them. It's funny how now we're saying Russia gave secret info to Iraq. Funny how we ( U.S ) supplied weapons/training to Afghanistan while it was occupied by the Russians ( I'm sure you all remember that's when we trained Osama Bin laden he was a freedom fighter back then ) ,but that was okay. We really need to start trying to make allies/friends again. We also need to stop telling everyone that anyone who disagree's with us is wrong especially now that we're illagally occupying a foreign country. But hey I'm not the only one laughing..... right?

 

[Made in the USA]

Wow…I don't even know where to begin...

what about other contrys that have nuclear??
if you gonna take away nuclear from a country ,why not take it from all countrys?
why does for Exampel US need nuclear ,??

First off no one is taking anything away from anybody. What is happening now is to stop someone from getting a Nuclear Weapon, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is backed by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, which Iran signed in 1968 albeit by the Shah’s government, which obviously doesn’t exist anymore. Let me make one thing very clear, no one in the international community wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, NO ONE. If this happens an arms race in the Middle East, the most unstable region in the world, would most likely occur, and no one wants that.

Nuclear Weapons is much like Pandora’s Box, once it was open there is no turning back, only containment can be the answer. Other than the US no one of the other Nuclear Powers(China, Russia, US, France, Great Britain, Israel[though they have never admitted it], Pakistan, and India) have used theirs, and the US only used them to end the worst, most destructive war humanity has ever seen.

There is a nice balance between the nuclear nations, as there is mutual-assured-destruction if they are used, meaning if one of the main nuclear powers (I don’t consider Pakistan or India a main nuclear power, since the only reason they have nukes is because the other was seeking them, self-profiling-prophecy if you will) uses them then we all will be destroyed. Meaning no one of the current Nuclear Powers are suicidal, including North Korea.

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the new president of Iran) is a different story, I will get back to him later…

Hot-Dang, how can I resist!:biggrin:

Iran armed and nuclear:
OK, I know I’m going to get roasted for this, but it’s time for your reality check.
You can ban me, but I’ll just come back as 711!

Try looking at the other point of view, guys.
The Iranians are scared sh*tl*ss of all the heavily armed and nuclear countries out there that verbally threaten them (like the US for example). They read your posts here, for example. Just what would you do if you were them? Disarm? Ja, right.

What about all of Iran’s verbal threats that have occurred over the last 25+ years. They are the ones that call for the destruction of the US and Israel. It seems that you are only noticing recent history, meaning the last few years. No one has called for the destruction of Iran. See the difference?

On one side of them is a US ally, a nook-U-ler country. Pakistan. On the other side is Israel. Nook-U-ler Israel. And aggressive too. The US gave Israel nukes, they weren’t too happy about that...

Of course they were not happy, because that keep the Arab-League members from invading Israel. Six-Day War(1967), Yom Kipppur War(1973-74) do these ring any bells? Granted the 1956 War was the war were Israel took the Gaza Strip, but only attack after its neighbors mobilized their forces around Israel's boarder. Plus you seem to be forgetting one key aspect of this, all of the Israel's neighbors don't recognize it as a country. Iran and others have repeatedly called for the extermination of Israel, not the other way around. Hell in 2004 in a military parade in Tehran, Iran showed off its Shahab-3 missile, which is well within range of Israel and southern Europe, had written on one of the missiles, “WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP.”

It causes extreme instability and chaos, something they definitely don’t need right now.

Only in the sort term (Articles of the Confederation anyone?) and only because of those who corrupt the system and give it a bad name, its not as if theocracies and tyrannies are any better. The US had its growing pains with democracy too, and I don't think anyone can argue the world is not a better place because of it.

Don’t forget that the US is the only country in the world that blindly believes in democracy. Just like they ("they") blindly believe in Allah. Think about that for a moment.

First; like the others have said, the United States is not a democracy it is a republic, there is no true democracy in the world today, much like there isn't a true communist country in the world today and never was on for that matter. Second; And "blindly believe in democracy," I don't think over 230 years of a representative form of government, one can argue the United States of America blindly believing in democracy.

Anyway, that same Iraq next door attacked them a few years ago. News to you guys I guess. They lost about a million people, including those family members dying of heartbreak. About a twelfth of their population, that’s like the US losing 5 million. Somewhat more than happened on 911 and look how everybody reacted to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

First; its not the same Iraq, the Iraq that attacked Iran was a Baathist Party/Sunni sec(albeit supposedly secular Iraq, but if that was the case why did Saddam add the muslim phrases on the Iraqi national Flag?) controlled Iraq that attack a Shia Iran, now the Iraqi Shia are being properly represented. Plus many of those dead, but not the majority, but a good number of the military/civilian volunteers dead were suicide squads directed squarely at the Iraqis, basically human waves of attackers and bombers. It was a very brutal war. Also the Iraq that attacked them used chemical weapons against the Iranians, which they don't have anymore.

The Iranians now are more afraid of a Sunni uprising than anything, and as it has been shown in the recent months, the Baathist/Sunnis are the wolves and the Shia are the sheep, meaning that if we (the US) leaves, it is a very good chance that the Sunnis will take over the country again, the last thing Iran wants, even more than a US backed Iraq.

They know/believe nuclear is the ONLY way to hold of an aggressor (guess who that might be). Just like their friends Israel showed them.
Like Korea knows (but personally, I’m with you in the change Korea debate, ok).

Or maybe it is the "holy fire" that the Ayatollahs have asked allah to give them, to wipe out the infidels. Do you really want to take that chance?

Just what do you think they should do?

Umm...I don't know....how about joining the international community’s call for the end of their nuclear program, let the IAEA in to make sure its nuclear program is civilian in nature, open trade and other relations to help the improve the situation of the impoverished people of their country, give its citizenry proper representative form of government, allow the opposition and reformist a chance for the people to decide in what direction Iran will go in the future...that would be a good start.

What good can come of Iran going Nuclear? Well maybe this:
Iran will join the club of respectable countries, now that it is nuclear (speaking in the future here) it will feel safe in its security.
It will put on a suit and tie (so to speak) and join the other nations in condemning the other upstart non-nuclear radical nations.
It will be the leader in the Islamic World and have a calming influence over the other radical Islamic states.

Claming influence, I am sorry I have to laugh at that, do the Danish cartoons reaction mean anything to you? The Iranian leaders stoked the fire that led to the violence in the Muslim world.

It will crack down on terrorists because, like Saddam, it hates terrorists. It exterminates them because terrorists threaten the status quo. Terrorists threaten “respectable” states, right?

Flawed in many ways, especially since it was state backed terrorist that took over the US embassy, holding US nationals hostage for over a year.

Not to mention it is a "state sponsor of terrorism," backing many terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) to name a few.

Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.

Not to mention the Iranian backed suicide bombings in Beirut of the American Embassy, US Marine Barracks, and the French Barracks. Remember the Marines and French forces where there under UN orders of peace keeping during the Lebanese Civil War.

When Iran goes nuclear, other radicals will expect them to use their power, and the radicals will get pissed off at Iran for not throwing it’s weight around.
After a while they will start having problems with terrorists too.

How long is “a while.” What makes you think that Iran won't give a nuke to any of the above named groups to destroy Tel Aviv or smuggle on into the US, before they become "respectable" as you put it. Or what would stop just one radical Iranian, in the right position, giving a bomb to a terrorist group. If they do make nuclear weapons can you guarantee that one won’t end up in the hands of a terrorist? Of course you can’t.

Iran supposedly has al-Qaeda members including one of Bin Laden’s sons in custody, but is unwilling to bring them to justice along with senior al-Qaeda members it detained in 2003. Iran also refuses to publicly identify the detainees on security grounds and transfer custody of the detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation and trial. In 2004, Iranian judiciary officials said they tried and convicted Iranian supporters of al-Qaeda, but no details were provided. Though through detainee testimony and over 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled by analysts at the NSA the 9/11 Commission showed strong ties to al-Qaeda, along with the many of the 19 highjackers traveled through Iran under the knowledge and support of officials in Tehran. These contacts were strengthened after the USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran—and through intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia—concerning the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country, including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S. official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as well of other key al-Qaeda figures.

You act like we are dealing with rational players, as if this is Game Theory, problem is…its not, and there is no evidence to the contrary, actually there is more evidence that we are dealing with a sociopath.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only says crazy things about the Holocaust, but it is his strong beliefs in the 12th Imam, Shi’ism’s version of the Messiah that concerns me. Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years way. He has also reportedly told an associate while speaking to the UN a few months ago, he felt a halo around him and for “…those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink…as if a hand was holding them there and it open their eyes to receive” his message. He is said to believe that the Islamic Revolution whole reason of being is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?

710, you estimate is 50/50 at best, those aren’t the odds I want to gamble with nuclear weapons on the table.

BTW- the isreali pilot that blew the reactor was killed on the space shuttle 22 years later.

He was one of the six pilots that flew in the attack.

Unfortunately I think they stopped saying that ,because of the "one nation under God" part.

Unfortunately, I think you are correct. Thanks.

By the way, the pledge will be kept as long as they get rid of the "under god" part, which was only added in the 1950s to counter the atheist Soviets. And for the record I am not an atheist, I just don't see the point of having the phrase when it was artificially added to begin with.

 

[Made in the USA]

Re: Don King, where are you?

Ever beat-the-snot outta an inferior opponent in an attempt to acquire what they possess but you want? Then you had to rationalize to others the basis of your actions? Just curious.

This has become a cliche', as it's rather routine...

- Iran possesses something. Hush-hush deals w/ India/China for pipelines, as well.
- US wants to acquire this, ie. have access to.
- Iran is very inferior to US militarily.
- US can not justifiably exert it's power on Iran.
- Iran is built-up to be a dangerous 'State w/ advanced military weaponry.
- World now perceives Iran as potentially hostile nation.
- US/others enforce regime change in Iran; use of force is seen to be acceptable as Iran being a formidable, unpredictable, dangerous rogue nation.
- US has desired decision-makers in Tehran.

Other 'unseen' changes resulting:

* polarization of the 'Shia majority in Iraq, much to the satisfaction of the Sunni Arab minority, ie. Ex-Saddam Ba'ath entourage.
* Hizbullah weakening in Lebanon, as Iranian backing would diminish.
* Only national threat to Israel is neutralized


In the past, Iraq's army was hyped-up (ie. Republican Guard, 3-4,000 modern tanks, Scud missiles, 'super' gun, MiG-29's, 2million men in uniform, etc'...). North Korea's military has been hyped-up to justify troop placement in South Korea near the DMZ of 54th parallel. China's phenomenal economic growth, Silkworm anti-ship missile, and 4million-man+ army has been hyped-up, etc'. This missile is widely believed to be what the Iranian's might be 'loosely' referring to as they have acquired analogous versions of this from USSR/China in the past. Ironically, Saddam-led Iraq possessed the French-made Exocet anti-ship cruise missile which is devastatingly accurate, proving so in the Falkland's war and sadly later in the Iran-Iraq war when mistakingly fired into the USS Stark. Iran doesn't have this missile, a proven & effective weapon.

There is no denying that until 2002 the Iranians held a secret nuclear facility at Natanz, which it admitted to after being caught with its pants down. And to hint that this is only about oil is absurd. Unlike Iraq, the Iranians aren't denying enriching uranium, it is bragging about it, also it saying that it will negotiate with US directly and suspend enrichment, why negotiate if the program is civilian in nature, why not instead agree to the Russian plan of controlling the nuclear fuel for civilian program? Why did it deny the Russian plan unless it wants the fuel rods for other purposes?

You bring up the Silkworm missile, then you obviously remember the up roar it caused in the '80s when China deployed them on the Straits of Hormuz for the Iranians, a choke point for international shipping in the region. And the Iranians continued to threaten to close the Strait through military force, which would cripple the world's economy.

What makes you think the Chinese Silkworm and the Iranian counter-part is not acurate, what...just because it hasn't been used in open conflict yet?

 

[|Adeel]

Which country did make A-bomb first?

 

[Made in the USA]

Which country did make A-bomb first?

Really???

 

[|Adeel]

Re: Don King, where are you?

But hey I'm not the only one laughing..... right?

Laughing with you bro' IMO, idiots on both sides.

 

[|Adeel]

Really???

On August 2, 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify uranium-235, which could be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known then only as "The Manhattan Project." Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expediting research that would produce a viable atomic bomb.

The most complicated issue to be addressed in making of an atomic bomb was the production of ample amounts of "enriched" uranium to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, uranium-235 was very hard to extract. In fact, the ratio of conversion from uranium ore to uranium metal is 500:1. Compounding this, the one part of uranium that is finally refined from the ore is over 99% uranium-238, which is practically useless for an atomic bomb. To make the task even more difficult, the useful U-235 and nearly useless U-238 are isotopes, nearly identical in their chemical makeup. No ordinary chemical extraction method could separate them; only mechanical methods could work.

A massive enrichment laboratory/plant was constructed at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Harold C. Urey and his colleagues at Columbia University devised an extraction system that worked on the principle of gaseous diffusion, and Ernest O. Lawrence (inventor of the Cyclotron) at the University of California in Berkeley implemented a process involving magnetic separation of the two isotopes.

Next, a gas centrifuge was used to further separate the lighter U-235 from the heavier, non-fissionable U-238. Once all of these procedures had been completed, all that needed to be done was to put to the test the entire concept behind atomic fission ("splitting the atom," in layman's terms).

Over the course of six years, from 1939 to 1945, more than $2 billion was spent during the history of the Manhattan Project. The formulas for refining uranium and putting together a working atomic bomb were created and seen to their logical ends by some of the greatest minds of our time. Chief among the people who unleashed the power of the atom was J. Robert Oppenheimer, who oversaw the project from conception to completion.

Finally, the day came when all at Los Alamos would find out if "The Gadget" (code-named as such during its development) was going to be the colossal dud of the century or perhaps an end to the war. It all came down to a fateful morning in midsummer, 1945.

At 5:29:45 (Mountain War Time) on July 16, 1945, in a white blaze that stretched from the basin of the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico to the still-dark skies, "The Gadget" ushered in the Atomic Age. The light of the explosion then turned orange as the atomic fireball began shooting upwards at 360 feet per second, reddening and pulsing as it cooled. The characteristic mushroom cloud of radioactive vapor materialized at 30,000 feet. Beneath the cloud, all that remained of the soil at the blast site were fragments of jade green radioactive glass created by the heat of the reaction.

The brilliant light from the detonation pierced the early morning skies with such intensity that residents from a faraway neighboring community would swear that the sun came up twice that day. Even more astonishing is that a blind girl saw the flash 120 miles away.

Upon witnessing the explosion, its creators had mixed reactions. Isidor Rabi felt that the equilibrium in nature had been upset -- as if humankind had become a threat to the world it inhabited. J. Robert Oppenheimer, though ecstatic about the success of the project, quoted a remembered fragment from the Bhagavad Gita. "I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds." Ken Bainbridge, the test director, told Oppenheimer, "Now we're all sons of bitches."

After viewing the results several participants signed petitions against loosing the monster they had created, but their protests fell on deaf ears. The Jornada del Muerto of New Mexico would not be the last site on planet Earth to experience an atomic explosion.

Quote from a quick google.com search.


The A-bomb has only been used twice in warfare. Both times by the USA.


Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

 

[Made in the USA]

Really???

Quote from a quick google.com search.


The A-bomb has only been used twice in warfare. Both times by the USA.


Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

Thanks for the history lesson I am just shocked that you even asked the question I saw the cheesy smile you posted, my reponse was, "Are you really asking this?"= Really??? I guess my American slang doesn't translate too well?

 

[710]

a couple of quick nits:

1. the US is not a democracy, no matter what propaganda the govt continues to spout.

2. Iran become respectable.... this is the same government that goes nuts over cartoons, thinks women aren't much better than pets, and says that if someone says 'divorced' three times in their sleep it constitutes a legal divorce and the woman has to sleep with another man before the couple can be remarried. These kind of people live in the friggin DARK AGES!!! I realize it's just a subset of people that are the problem but it always appears this subset are the ones in control of the government.

1) Could you say it was a business? Nothing wrong with that I guess.
As long as it doesn’t turn into a police state. Sadly that is what seems to be happening. Sorry. I truly believe Washington and Jefferson would be turning in their graves if they saw some of the things happening these days.
On the other hand, the world changes and it’s out of our hands. No one can change everything. And who is to say the way things are going is bad? Maybe it could be lots worse. Maybe we are all doing ok and should be proud the way things are. After all, no nukes have been used yet. That's pretty good.

I wasn’t saying that I respect Iran or that everybody should. I was using ‘respectable’ in a sense that it would join other nations in the power league. The nuclear league.

Also the first one to use nukes in anyway will not have my respect. Just like if my neighbour has guns, and we have an argument about the hedge. If he runs in to get his guns, well... his dick must be about 1 cm long, poor guy. On the other hand, if his dick IS 1 cm long, he will be able to discuss the hedge problem with me with more confidence because mentally he will feel secure in…something..
Anyway I think any nuclear country knows this. To actually use a bomb is not what the bomb is for.

Things may change in 100 years when there is no more water, though.

(and before you think I’m saying Iran has a short dick, remember that the US has nukes too. Hell, I think even Belgium has nukes)

2) Also I think that societies that restrict 50% of their population (women) do themselves no good at all.
But you have to look at WHY many Islamic countries ‘restrict’ their women. They don’t consider it restriction. They consider it protection and supreme respect for women.

It’s hard to for me to get my head around this because I, in my western society, am super superficial. I only see what is on the surface.
I still haven’t figured it out, but I think it has something to do with the old days. Before the rule of law was developed (long ago, just after the Earth Crust Shift), women were revered. They controlled the place because they were magic. They also were weaker and had to be protected. The more a man loved and protected a woman, the more respect that woman got from the man.
See what I mean? This is the protection and respect they give their women.
But not letting them drive NSXes around is going too far. And my wife just enthusiastically told me about an article about a car that can park itself, something she has an interest in.
So times are changing.

 

[|Adeel]

hehe...

Thanks for the history lesson

No problem (just kidding, relax)

I am just shocked that you even asked the question I saw the cheesy smile you posted, my reponse was, "Are you really asking this?"= Really??? I guess my American slang doesn't translate too well?

I understood it. My question was retorical

 

[nsxlover]

The problem with Iran having nuclear warheads is that they may sell them to terrorists. That is pretty easy to understand for the whole world as nobody is exempt from the attacks.

 

[erik76]

The problem with Iran having nuclear warheads is that they may sell them to terrorists. That is pretty easy to understand for the whole world as nobody is exempt from the attacks.

Good points. It's all to scary to think what can happen.

 

[Sig]

The problem with Iran having nuclear warheads is that they may sell them to terrorists. That is pretty easy to understand for the whole world as nobody is exempt from the attacks.

Selling them is probably a stretch.... Ahmadinejad and the mullahs would probably just hand them over free of charge as long as Hezbollah and Iran's other buddies promise to use them on western interests and Israel.

 

[KGP]

Selling them is probably a stretch....

Yep. Paying them is more realistic.

 

[710]

‘Buy’ and ‘sell’ are not the right words.
‘Sponsor’ is the right word.

That's what the US does.:biggrin:

 

[nsxlover]

‘Buy’ and ‘sell’ are not the right words.
‘Sponsor’ is the right word.

That's what the US does.:biggrin:

If Belgium gets hit by a terrorist, you may have a change of heart.

 

[robr]

Um, America never WAS a true democracy. We're a Republic. Skip Social Studies in grade school?

That's exactly my point. However our gov't and media tells us continually that we're a democracy.

 

[710]

If Belgium gets hit by a terrorist, you may have a change of heart.

Haha. Belgium already has a very active terrorist group.

They are called “The Tax Department”.

:smile: