baradar_jackson

LOL He spoke to a crowd in a stadium in Makhachkala and said "you cannot keep an eagle in the cage." Never change, Khabib. Khabib vs. Tony next, please UFC. Ten trillion people who watched UFC 229 were exposed to the monster that is Tony Ferguson. And of course everyone knows Khabib now; many who hate him, many who love him. Khabib vs. Tony makes competitive sense and business sense.

I posted this before the fight. check the timestamp broham The media is being lying liars as usual. Conor throws a dolly on the bus, seriously injures fighters, and the video footage is used on AAAAAAAAAAALL the promotional material for this fight. He and his team talk a bunch of crap, crossing a few red lines in the process. Dillon Danis, the king of the douchebags, gets attacked. Why is anyone surprised? Why are they talking about suspensions, and stripping the title? Why are they talking about "rematch" when Conor got completely outclassed???? This sport and the whole media that surrounds it has become a joke.

Put in your predictions here. I say Khabib wins by submission in round 3 or 4.

Salaam aleikum. There is a download link. You can download the film and watch at your own pace: http://www.mediafire.com/file/4sn33lli0d6udj7/Film+Mohammad+VOSTENG.mp4

The very presence of Abadi is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty on part of the USA. But some people are content staying in the dirt, flinging mud at a fraternal people rather than recognizing what truly plagues the region and has plagued the reason for over a century. PS Iran helped establish, train, and equip the PMU... which is why there aren't people hanging from the gallows in every Iraqi city just for being of a *certain* mazhab (wink wink).

As far as I know these jobs are usually taken up by people in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia. If you live anywhere with high cost of living, such jobs are clearly not worthwhile but depending on where you live it may be something to look into. (I have no idea what data entry is by the way so I am basing this comment on the prevalence of coding jobs of American and European companies being outsourced).

Yeah oxygen is overrated, you're right.

Thank God you don't own the amazon rainforest. Maybe we'd all be dead by now. Nobody cares what you strongly believe in. Argue something based on its merit, not based on your beliefs, strong or otherwise.

The US government has shown time and time again that it cannot be reasoned with. They understand one type of language, and that is the language of force. A lot can be gleaned from little things. Look at this post from the official twitter account of the US department of defence: At first when I saw this I thought it was a parody account, but no: check the arrow. It's official. They are actually proud of indiscriminate destruction of nations and of civilian infrastructure. No shame whatsoever. And when you see their so-called diplomacy, this type of posts are not so surprising. They don't generally offer concessions, when they do it is the bare minimum (and then they won't even abide by these agreements they have made anyway). An agreement with the United States is not worth the paper it's written on. I feel sorry for people who do not see this because it's like forgetting that the sky is blue.

Some people are stoopid. I am sure they had some stupid excuse like "the house doesn't get enough light." Yeah it doesn't get light because you have beautiful trees giving you SHADE, idiots. Shade: one of the greatest sources of comfort for man since Adam. Cutting down trees with such weak reasoning should be illegal.

What you are saying is like saying: the US did not lose a single battle in Vietnam. Technically true. But who cares? Giap thought they were toast after the failure of the Tet offensive. Little did he realize that this "victory" for the US was not celebrated nor seen as progress. It literally means nothing. The power the US possesses in theory is as useful as the theoretical possibility that I can make the NBA. It hasn't been "unleashed" because the US is afraid to actually get into a fight with an adversary that can fight back. They are afraid of conflict expanding beyond the bounds with which they are comfortable, which is in itself a sign of weakness but the reason they even have this issue is because their populous is spoiled by the plentiful means they have enjoyed for 60-70 years or so. There is no population less equipped for long, drawn out warfare.... especially when it's all aggressive warfare and ordinary people tend to not like dying for imperial ambitions.

This is factually incorrect. The US "sunk" one warship - the Sahand - and it got recommissioned if I recall correctly. Also that was ten million years ago. Iran's anti-ship missile capability has vastly improved since then.

First of all, I am not a part of the Iranian defence apparatus. So I am not overestimating "my" capabilities. I am on the sidelines just like you, simply doing my best to assess the situation. Secondly, I did not really make any reference to faith... although that is absolutely essentially: see how Saudi is signing their own death certificates by invading one of the poorest countries in the world (Yemen). Fortitude, faith, whatever you want to call it. It matters. Now... as for the military capabilities of the United States, the problem many people run into is that they think this is a numbers game. They say: more budget, more industrial capacity, more fighters, more bombers, more artillery pieces, more guidance systems, more warships, etc... Military science is not a game of "who has more." It never has been. Everything else being equal, then the numbers matter. In a vacuum, they don't mean much. Instead of looking at numbers, look at history. Look at all the wars in which the US has fought since the end of World War II. How many have they won, and by "win" I don't mean "they killed more people." Obviously, the US has a lot of killing power; killing people in droves is not the same as winning a war. Winning a war or a battle is if: you accomplish the objectives defined by the mission. So if for example if you want a reunification of Korea under YOUR terms, then the absence of that is a defeat. If your objective is to prevent the spread of communist rule in Vietnam and instead Vietnam is united under communist rule, then that is a defeat. If your objective is to overthrow the Taliban and then, 20 years later you are forced to negotiate treaties with Taliban... that's a defeat. In all of these wars, the US has lost. And they have not taken on particularly strong countries. Vietnam was probably the all-around strongest in terms of overall military capability. But even Vietnam was really not a regional power, let alone a world power. Still, they lost. Yeah they killed a lot of people. That's not the same as winning. Winning means reaching the military objective. Having failed to reach it, that's a defeat. This is not baradar being a jingoist, these are the facts. Now... could the US "theoretically" defeat Iran. Well, yeah, duh. Nuclear weapons. They could theoretically genocide the entire Iranian people with nukes. But let's save those childish scenarios for the video games, because that's not a realistic scenario. Even against Russia, because the US has more nukes, they can "theoretically" conquer Moscow in a nuclear war. It's a meaningless thought to even entertain because no such conflict will take place. You said that Iran cannot track the best US fighters and bombers. I'd appreciate if you be more specific because as far as I am concerned, any rhetoric about the US having an unsinkable aircraft went out the door when Serbia downed a F-117. There is no such thing as "stealth" in this world, only stealthy. Iran has devoted a very sizable portion of its defence budget, to air defence. And in air defence there are few countries that are as successful as Iran. Serbia downed a F-117. Iran can do much more of that. And now that we are on the subject of aircraft: the intelligence of a nation which continues to manufacture the B-52 has to be HEAVILY questioned. Rhetoric has never won a war. I agree. But whose side's rhetoric has consistently failed to match reality? Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. What has the US won since WWII? Absolutely nothing. They kill, they kill, and they kill. And they lose, and they lose, and they lose. because they fail to meet their most basic objectives. That's the reality of the situation, and that's why - while you're sitting here saying all this fluff about how the US can flatten Iran like a pancake... nothing has happened. 40 years. Nothing. Even their simple "hostage rescue mission" was an abject failure. But yeah, they managed to kill a bunch of civilian passengers of an airliner, sure. Nobody has ever denied they are proficient in killing. They killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, through varied means. That war still was, and always will be, a failure.

Everyone please put aside three hours and watch it. it's brilliant

Of course, any time a country enters a war, it can do so on its own terms without any worry about anything. Right? Right??? I mean this above statement is just delusional, and I'm not targetting you specifically @Sumerian because a lot of people say things like this and I want to know what they're on. The whole problem of the US right now with respect to Iran is that they cannot have conflict limited to the small sphere which they choose. In my opinion, even the limited conflict they seek will not accomplish what they want, which is regime change, but whatever: either way, the Iranian response - the blows it will deal to the US Navy as well as to regional US military bases, via it's missile capability - will make the escalation of conflict unavoidable. The reason why the US has yet to invade Iran (or the DPRK for that matter, which is a far poorer country with far less chips in its hand) is because it cannot win. If winning were as easy as the hawkish people think it is, it would have been done by now. There have been reports of imminent war since when? I personally remember some as far back as 2002 but I am sure they were before that, as well - as far back as the 1980s - but I was just too young to notice or understand. I don't think a war will happen, because I think the Pentagon knows it's a death wish and have known that for some time now. But it's not impossible. We'll see. I don't want it to happen, because it will cause a lot of hardship for a lot of people (and it will most certainly escalate into a more global conflict), but what can you do? The US is an insane asylum where the most dangerous inmates are running the show; you never know what's going to happen.